Big Bang theory just does not make sense

[billhinge]

16 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Not really an astronomy topic though is it 

It could be if I/you are a boltzmann brain 😉 

[wesdon1]

23 hours ago, andrew s said:

I think this is one of the very few places on the web, or elsewhere come to that, where one can have a civilised conversation on science related topics. 

It has a concentration of science aware individuals with a broad range of knowledge and skills and it's all the better for that.

Regards Andrew 

@andrew s I concur with your sentiments Andrew. This is indeed one of a small number of places online where people can have the most interesting conversations and debates, and it is nearly always civil and respectful, save for the rare one off individual who is here for all the wrong reasons.

My goodness if I mentioned GR or QM on my Facebook page ( which I did attempt on a couple of occasions! ) I get either total silence or total ridicule! ( and I have to admit, it really hurt my feelings, because I really couldn't/don't undr4stand why people need to be so rude? If they don't like something, they can tell me in a polite and respectful manner? )

Furthermore, whenever I post beautiful astro pics on facebook, most people love the pics, but have ZERO interest in the science behind the pic they're looking at?? Really baffles me, to be honest...

Kind Regards, Wes

[vlaiv]

28 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

most people love the pics, but have ZERO interest in the science behind the pic they're looking at?? Really baffles me, to be honest...

We have touched up on theories of evolution in this thread, so maybe people knowledgeable in those could contribute more - but I think it is down to evolution for that one.

Being interested in science is wasteful activity in terms of energy expense. There are rare individuals that possess enough of curiosity and again I suspect that is evolutionary thing - in order to move forward and evolve, curiosity is necessary. Who would try a new fruit if not curious - but it is double edged sword. If all possess some dose of curiosity and fruit is poisonous - not good, but if none are curious - we might miss out on a very good fruit and further development.

There is also another highly beneficial trait we have evolved - that really gets on my nerves - it can be summed up as "monkey sees, monkey does". We have extremely high tendency to just repeat knowledge / behavior without deep scrutiny. This is highly beneficial in early age when we learn - it allows us to just adopt established knowledge and behavior - but at certain age it starts being impairment if we don't utilize reason to do deeper analysis of things.

[saac]

5 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

We have touched up on theories of evolution in this thread, so maybe people knowledgeable in those could contribute more - but I think it is down to evolution for that one.

Being interested in science is wasteful activity in terms of energy expense. There are rare individuals that possess enough of curiosity and again I suspect that is evolutionary thing - in order to move forward and evolve, curiosity is necessary. Who would try a new fruit if not curious - but it is double edged sword. If all possess some dose of curiosity and fruit is poisonous - not good, but if none are curious - we might miss out on a very good fruit and further development.

There is also another highly beneficial trait we have evolved - that really gets on my nerves - it can be summed up as "monkey sees, monkey does". We have extremely high tendency to just repeat knowledge / behavior without deep scrutiny. This is highly beneficial in early age when we learn - it allows us to just adopt established knowledge and behavior - but at certain age it starts being impairment if we don't utilize reason to do deeper analysis of things.

You may as well ask why we like or favour any particular activity. As a "science teacher " I can  say with some experience that science holds little to no interest to many people. 

Jim 

[AstroKeith]

29 minutes ago, saac said:

You may as well ask why we like or favour any particular activity. As a "science teacher " I can  say with some experience that science holds little to no interest to many people. 

Jim 

I've always loved science (and engineering), and find it easy. I'm still learning new stuff all the time (at 67). I cannot cope with foreign languages. At all.

My wife is exactly opposite.

Im happy dealing with particle physics and cosmology concepts that are way out there, but my wife can find a map a problem. I am sure her emotional intelligence is way above mine.

Was this nature or nurture?

We spend quite. a lot of time with our grandchildren (ages 3 to 12) and think I can almost 'see' their brain wiring developing. I'm pretty sure its nurture that defines us.

[saac]

13 minutes ago, AstroKeith said:

I've always loved science (and engineering), and find it easy. I'm still learning new stuff all the time (at 67). I cannot cope with foreign languages. At all.

My wife is exactly opposite.

Im happy dealing with particle physics and cosmology concepts that are way out there, but my wife can find a map a problem. I am sure her emotional intelligence is way above mine.

Was this nature or nurture?

We spend quite. a lot of time with our grandchildren (ages 3 to 12) and think I can almost 'see' their brain wiring developing. I'm pretty sure its nurture that defines us.

I'm, exactly the same   Regarding nature/nurture I think they are both at play.  Is it possible to teach everybody to be artistic, or musical, poetic or even athletic (move aesthetically)? I think there is a predisposition somewhere, that may be from nature or external factors I guess. What appears certain is that we cannot be interested/excel at everything; in that respect I think motivation is probably the most significant influence.

Jim  

Edited September 3, 2023 by saac

[Macavity]

Sometimes I think one might begin with something (topic!) a tad easier? 😛
I am "struggling" here? lol. But I am ever impressed re. SGL contributions...
But then, to me, some "easy" (non-maths!) stuff, is met with bafflement? lol

"We Scientists" have always struggled against NERD stereotyping though?
Over recent years, I have become so accustomed to NOT mentioning any
interest (past job) in "science"! Science has become "controversial" now? 😏

It's a paradox? The many "Science Fans" (c.f. social media!) struggle with
Basic Maths but: "By Heavens", they know which Theory/Theorist is Right! 🤣
 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Macavity

[George Jones]

Several years ago a colleague asked me to write a short homage to physics that emphasized fundamental curiosity-driven physics. Writing to order, I produced the following hyperbolic passage, which my colleague has used several times in presentations.

"Why study and research fundamental physics? Why study curved spacetime and general relativity? Cosmology? Elementary particle physics? One possibly selfish reason for me and many other physicists is "Because it's fun!", but other reasons exist. Science, including non-applied fundamental science, is part of who we are as a species. Fundamental science is as much part of our culture as music, art, and literature. If we lose the desire and ability (possibly through politics) to ask fundamental “Why?” questions of our world, we have failed as humans."

[ollypenrice]

18 hours ago, George Jones said:

Several years ago a colleague asked me to write a short homage to physics that emphasized fundamental curiosity-driven physics. Writing to order, I produced the following hyperbolic passage, which my colleague has used several times in presentations.

"Why study and research fundamental physics? Why study curved spacetime and general relativity? Cosmology? Elementary particle physics? One possibly selfish reason for me and many other physicists is "Because it's fun!", but other reasons exist. Science, including non-applied fundamental science, is part of who we are as a species. Fundamental science is as much part of our culture as music, art, and literature. If we lose the desire and ability (possibly through politics) to ask fundamental “Why?” questions of our world, we have failed as humans."

 

Bravo. Ten times bravo.

As for the 'justification' of science through technology - no.  There is a hell of a downside to technology but to science there is none.

Olly

[AndrewRrrrrr]

18 hours ago, George Jones said:

Several years ago a colleague asked me to write a short homage to physics that emphasized fundamental curiosity-driven physics. Writing to order, I produced the following hyperbolic passage, which my colleague has used several times in presentations.

"Why study and research fundamental physics? Why study curved spacetime and general relativity? Cosmology? Elementary particle physics? One possibly selfish reason for me and many other physicists is "Because it's fun!", but other reasons exist. Science, including non-applied fundamental science, is part of who we are as a species. Fundamental science is as much part of our culture as music, art, and literature. If we lose the desire and ability (possibly through politics) to ask fundamental “Why?” questions of our world, we have failed as humans."

 

Totally agree, one of the things I say to colleagues is that when Joseph Fourier was working on his theories in the 19th century there would have been no practical use for them. Now in the 21st century it underpins almost all digital video/photo compression and distribution technology!

[JOC]

On 03/09/2023 at 16:10, George Jones said:

"Why study and research fundamental physics? Why study curved spacetime and general relativity? Cosmology? Elementary particle physics? One possibly selfish reason for me and many other physicists is "Because it's fun!", but other reasons exist. Science, including non-applied fundamental science, is part of who we are as a species. Fundamental science is as much part of our culture as music, art, and literature. If we lose the desire and ability (possibly through politics) to ask fundamental “Why?” questions of our world, we have failed as humans."

I believe science on the curriculum would be far more interesting for students to study if only the teachers would include the 'why' when they teach something.  The numbers of practical science experiments I carried out at secondary school without ever understanding 'why' we had done it, until 10+ years later it dawned on me out in 'industry' why that particular experiment had been important, were many and would surely have added to my enjoyment and perhaps even have captured the imagination of more students.   It is a hole that I really try to fill when I go into schools as a STEM ambassador.

Edited September 4, 2023 by JOC

[Nik271]

16 minutes ago, AndrewRrrrrr said:

Totally agree, one of the things I say to colleagues is that when Joseph Fourier was working on his theories in the 19th century there would have been no practical use for them. Now in the 21st century it underpins almost all digital video/photo compression and distribution technology!

Just a small correction: Fourier developed the theory of what is now known as the Fourier series for a practical reason: in order to solve the problem of heat diffusion, which leads to the famous heat equation, a differential equation in many variables.

As far as I know Fourier was unaware of applications of his series to other areas of physics, in fact it took a long time for the theory of the Fourier transform to be developed rigorously.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Nik271

[carastro]

Interesting to see the original poster has not been back on.  I bet he posted just to wind every one up.  You all seem to have had a good discussion though.

 

[saac]

20 hours ago, George Jones said:

Several years ago a colleague asked me to write a short homage to physics that emphasized fundamental curiosity-driven physics. Writing to order, I produced the following hyperbolic passage, which my colleague has used several times in presentations.

"Why study and research fundamental physics? Why study curved spacetime and general relativity? Cosmology? Elementary particle physics? One possibly selfish reason for me and many other physicists is "Because it's fun!", but other reasons exist. Science, including non-applied fundamental science, is part of who we are as a species. Fundamental science is as much part of our culture as music, art, and literature. If we lose the desire and ability (possibly through politics) to ask fundamental “Why?” questions of our world, we have failed as humans."

 

George you are pushing against an open door in this forum. For many however science is dropped like a hot stone as soon as the rigour starts, usually with the introduction of mathematics. 

Jim 

[saac]

1 hour ago, JOC said:

I believe science on the curriculum would be far more interesting for students to study if only the teachers would include the 'why' when they teach something.  The numbers of practical science experiments I carried out at secondary school without ever understanding 'why' we had done it, until 10+ years later it dawned on me out in 'industry' why that particular experiment had been important, were many and would surely have added to my enjoyment and perhaps even have captured the imagination of more students.   It is a hole that really try to fill when I go into schools as a STEM ambassador.

I really don't understand that JOC, I cannot conceive why it would ever be done in such a way. 

Jim 

[JOC]

19 minutes ago, saac said:

I really don't understand that JOC, I cannot conceive why it would ever be done in such a way. 

Jim 

Flame tests are a case in point.  I have often recently asked students if they are ever told why they do them (one of the first lab practicals students ever do at school).  They are not told that it demonstrates the fundamental theory of why commerical instruments in say ecological laboratories work (which is all that might need to say to capture a students attention), nor do they link it back to electron orbital theory when that is studied.  All those links I had to make for myself, and from what I hear when I ask students still aren't told.  I take great delight in filling in the blanks.

Edited September 4, 2023 by JOC

[Mandy D]

1 hour ago, carastro said:

Interesting to see the original poster has not been back on.  I bet he posted just to wind every one up.  You all seem to have had a good discussion though.

 

@carastro It is interesting to note how many join this site, post a silly question, statement or remark then leave. I was thinking about this only yesterday. I think some just come in purely for the puropse of winding the rest of us up, others are so ignorant of the science that they think they have a better understanding than the scientists. I recall one comment I found through Google many years ago: "Where does the moon go when it's not in our sky? No-one knows!"

It is also interesting, as you have noted, how these daft posts seem to generate some of the longest and liveliest discussions in here. The OP has really missed out on a lot of interesting stuff and the potential for actually learning something. He has probably now gone back to posting "Flerf" comments on Facebook.

[iantaylor2uk]

2 hours ago, AndrewRrrrrr said:

Totally agree, one of the things I say to colleagues is that when Joseph Fourier was working on his theories in the 19th century there would have been no practical use for them. Now in the 21st century it underpins almost all digital video/photo compression and distribution technology!

The whole reason Fourier worked on his series was to help him solve practical problems of the time on heat transfer!

[Mandy D]

3 minutes ago, JOC said:

Flame tests are a case in point.  I have often recently asked students if they are ever told why they do them (one of the first lab practicals students ever do at school).  They are not told that it demonstrates the fundamental theory of why commerical instruments in say ecological laboratories work (which is all that might need to say to capture a students attention), nor do they link it back to electron orbital theory when that is studied.  All those links I had to make for myself, and from what I hear when I ask students still aren't told.  I take quite delight in filling in the blanks.

I'm not sure (at least, not in every case) that students are not told how some of the practicals link to theory. I certainly recall from my O level chemistry classes that the flame test was linked to orbital electron theory. I am convinced that many students fail to remember pertinent information and, in most cases are incapable of knowledge transfer. I remember at the start of one physics lesson where the teacher stated that we had been taught about quadratic equations in maths class recently because he had asked the teacher before starting this particular lesson. Virtually everyone present was adamant that we had not yet met quadratic equations. It seems to me that what is learnt in the maths classroom stays there and our brains pick it back up once we go through the door into the room, again and the same for every other subject.

Strangely, I always found knowledge to be transferable in school, yet today if I walk out of a room with the intention of doing something I will forget what it is and have no chance of recalling until I walk back into the room where I originally had the thought, then it instantly returns. I wonder if this is due to the compartmentalism methods used in our education system or is it just my age?   What were we talking about?

[AstroMuni]

3 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I wonder if this is due to the compartmentalism methods used in our education system or is it just my age?

I think its partly down to the perceptions - i.e do I need this info for the test/exam. Many students (and sadly a few parents too, believe that students are being taught stuff thats irrelevant in later life). 😞

[Mandy D]

1 minute ago, AstroMuni said:

I think its partly down to the perceptions - i.e do I need this info for the test/exam. Many students (and sadly a few parents too, believe that students are being taught stuff thats irrelevant in later life). 😞

Yes, there is a lot of truth in what you say. But, there is also the reality that in fact we do not, in adult life, ever need large parts of what we were taught in school. The problem is in deciding which parts we will need.

[saac]

7 minutes ago, JOC said:

Flame tests are a case in point.  I have often recently asked students if they are ever told why they do them (one of the first lab practicals students ever do at school).  They are not told that it demonstrates the fundamental theory of why commerical instruments in say ecological laboratories work (which is all that might need to say to capture a students attention), nor do they link it back to electron orbital theory when that is studied.  All those links I had to make for myself, and from what I hear when I ask students still aren't told.  I take great delight in filling in the blanks.

We do flame tests with S2 (science) kids (age 12-13).  We explain beforehand that each element in the periodic table has a unique finger print encoded in the light that they emit when heated. At S2 we tell them that the light is emitted when the electrons are energised and then return from where they came, returning the energy as light of a particular frequency (colour).  We talk of the applications of spectroscopy citing cosmology  where we can use it to learn of the nature of a star, its age, composition, and movement through space leading to our knowledge of the expanding universe. We also talk about its use in forensic science which sets them up for a practical exercise they will do at the end of S2 to identify an unknown compound in a crime scene setting, time permitting we will use absorption spectrums to identify pollutants in local pond water.  In Higher physics we will go deeper into the mathematics of emission spectra (Plank's law, Bohr model and de Broglie wavelength) and how spectral emissions points to the quantum characteristics of light.  Pretty much all of the science we teach both in the integrated and  single science courses are similarly taught with a deliberate focus of uses and applications.  If this is not being done elsewhere it is most likely that the subject is being taught by non specialist who lack the knowledge.  I can't understand any advantage in not relating the relevance in this way; very strange indeed.

Jim 

[AstroMuni]

2 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

The problem is in deciding which parts we will need.

You are correct..Its a chicken and egg situation. If at an early age you knew exactly what you wanted to be in later life then you could be provided a specialised set of courses. But at the moment we are taught a broad range of skills so we have options to pick & choose and in later stages of the education process (including during work) to specialize.

[saac]

35 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I'm not sure (at least, not in every case) that students are not told how some of the practicals link to theory. I certainly recall from my O level chemistry classes that the flame test was linked to orbital electron theory. I am convinced that many students fail to remember pertinent information and, in most cases are incapable of knowledge transfer. I remember at the start of one physics lesson where the teacher stated that we had been taught about quadratic equations in maths class recently because he had asked the teacher before starting this particular lesson. Virtually everyone present was adamant that we had not yet met quadratic equations. It seems to me that what is learnt in the maths classroom stays there and our brains pick it back up once we go through the door into the room, again and the same for every other subject.

Strangely, I always found knowledge to be transferable in school, yet today if I walk out of a room with the intention of doing something I will forget what it is and have no chance of recalling until I walk back into the room where I originally had the thought, then it instantly returns. I wonder if this is due to the compartmentalism methods used in our education system or is it just my age?   What were we talking about?

Totally agree. When asked a question in class a teenager's normal and immediate reaction is often to say nothing. Even the most confident and outgoing fall victim to this, at that age peer pressure is the immovable object of fable .  As for transfer of knowledge I'm convinced it is an age thing or rather to do with brain development. A teenager's brain remember is undergoing an impressive rate of change, it is being rewired and reprogrammed. I think many of the things we take for granted as adults are actually physically (neurologically) beyond their grasp.  There is a reason why "they don't get it". One of the most obvious differences is the way we as adult can sustain effort (focus) in the study of something for which we truly have no interest. Teenagers find this next to impossible, they lack the mental resilience and cannot get past the "why do I need to do this".  On this occasion it is not their fault, it's the physiology of their brains. 

 

Jim 

Edited September 4, 2023 by saac

[AstroMuni]

19 hours ago, saac said:

cannot get past the "why do I need to do this".  On this occasion it is not their fault, its the physiology of their brains. 

And I suspect its also a bit down to the way its taught too... the connections between subjects and the linkage is not always made clear in simple terms. Some teachers tend to do that and make the subject 'enjoyable'.

Another challenge is probably due to the way exam papers are written. eg. If you were asked to apply a certain physics principle in maths would it be considered out of syllabus? The other way around is probably more acceptable 🙂 So if the student was aware that they could be called upon to exercise the 'physics' part of their knowledge in a different paper then they would use associative memory rather than think about it as - its a certain paper hence I know the kind of questions in scope. Food for thought!

Edited September 5, 2023 by AstroMuni