Big Bang theory just does not make sense

[michael8554]

11 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

Hi Mike. My friend, as far as I'm aware, we have already proven that Black Holes exist,

Yes I'll accept that was a poor example.

But my other examples, Dark Matter and Dark Energy for instance, are currently just theories to explain anomalies in our observational understanding of the amount of matter in the universe and why galaxy groups don't expand.

Given time all will be explained, like Black Hole are.

Michael

[Macavity]

Dare I admit that, for me, this thread taught me (reminded me?) that the
BIG BANG has (at least) TWO meanings! Before/After the "unexplained"? 😅

Most "scientists" seem comfortable with the idea of "not knowing" stuff?
They once viewed someone's "theory of everything" with Equanimity? lol.
But then, along came "popular" science... I am RIGHT... They are WRONG! 😏

Sometimes reminded of a past (RIP!) *Professor* (Long B.C. - Before Cox!)
who used to challenge his various tutorial groups with an enigmatic: "Ah...
So that's what YOU think"! All delivered with, notably KINDLY, "Deadpan"! 😉

But I sense he was trying to get people to THINK (for themselves)?
Perhaps that is the problem I have with "Popular Science"... It offers
CERTAINTY to non-scientists, rather than delights in uncertainty? 🙃

[andrew s]

1 minute ago, Macavity said:

It offers
CERTAINTY to non-scientists, rather than delights in uncertainty?

Absolutely,  the only certainty in life is death and taxes,  unless your rich enough to avoid the latter.😊

Regards Andrew 

[wesdon1]

3 hours ago, michael8554 said:

Yes I'll accept that was a poor example.

But my other examples, Dark Matter and Dark Energy for instance, are currently just theories to explain anomalies in our observational understanding of the amount of matter in the universe and why galaxy groups don't expand.

Given time all will be explained, like Black Hole are.

Michael

@michael8554 Hi again Mike. Yes the dark matter and dark energy theories are basically scientists admitting " we literally have no clue what it all is!?" Tbh Mike, I have have always wondered about whether the reason scientists can't explain what dark matter and energy is, is because the fundamental Einstein theory of general relativity, which beautifully explains a lot, very precisely, is actually totally wrong, and if scientists worked out a new "Einsteinian type theory of general relativity" that accounted for all the so called unknown mass and energy, then there would be no need for dark matter and energy theories? I feel scientists have stay blindly loyal to Einstein's theories, instead of ripping up the book and starting from scratch, so to speak. 

As you rightly say Mike, given time, all will be revealed.

[saac]

5 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

@michael8554 Hi again Mike. Yes the dark matter and dark energy theories are basically scientists admitting " we literally have no clue what it all is!?" Tbh Mike, I have have always wondered about whether the reason scientists can't explain what dark matter and energy is, is because the fundamental Einstein theory of general relativity, which beautifully explains a lot, very precisely, is actually totally wrong, and if scientists worked out a new "Einsteinian type theory of general relativity" that accounted for all the so called unknown mass and energy, then there would be no need for dark matter and energy theories? I feel scientists have stay blindly loyal to Einstein's theories, instead of ripping up the book and starting from scratch, so to speak. 

As you rightly say Mike, given time, all will be revealed.

From gravitational lensing to time dilation if I recall it has held up fairly well to testing. What areas about GR do you think need re thinking?

Jim  

[wesdon1]

4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory. A theory consists of a number or observable phenomena and facts. It may. or may not, have more value than other theories - until something better comes along. A theory isn't a proof; a proof is when a theory is shown to be true by a number of methods and beyond a reasonable doubt.

All I can state as a proof is that I (and the whole of humanity) am (is) not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to determine where the universe and all the matter in it comes from. I find some of the explanations in theories like the big bang to be inadequate. 

I'm not going to strain my brain over this. I am content to understand what I do not understand. If I have a revelation about the origin of matter I'll let you know 😜 

@Mr Spock I liked your comments regarding our inability to answer/understand such incredibly complex questions regarding the universe etc. I would say this...

Think of a Dog, our beloved little bessies. They don't understand a lot of what we tell them to do, they have no clue about science, the cosmos etc, it's just wayyy beyond their brains ability to fathom. But they're still as happy and go-lucky as a kid at Christmas! They still obey our commands, despite not having a clue why were telling them to do something, they simply live in the moment and to hell with what they can't understand! And therein lies an important lesson for us humans...Don't get too hung up on our inabilities to understand certain things, just enjoy the things we do understand, and see what new knowledge and exciting adventures tomorrow brings!

( forgive me, I know that comment was a bit random/eclectic n out there! LOL, but i hope you get where i'm coming from! )

 

[Xilman]

23 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

@michael8554 Hi again Mike. Yes the dark matter and dark energy theories are basically scientists admitting " we literally have no clue what it all is!?" Tbh Mike, I have have always wondered about whether the reason scientists can't explain what dark matter and energy is, is because the fundamental Einstein theory of general relativity, which beautifully explains a lot, very precisely, is actually totally wrong, and if scientists worked out a new "Einsteinian type theory of general relativity" that accounted for all the so called unknown mass and energy, then there would be no need for dark matter and energy theories? I feel scientists have stay blindly loyal to Einstein's theories, instead of ripping up the book and starting from scratch, so to speak. 

As you rightly say Mike, given time, all will be revealed.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, is just such a theory. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

It explains somethings really rather well; other things not so well. That is true of all theories.

So your "scientists have stay blindly loyal to Einstein's theories" is rather harsh in my opinion.

[wesdon1]

10 minutes ago, saac said:

From gravitational lensing to time dilation if I recall it has held up fairly well to testing. What areas about GR do you think need re thinking?

Jim  

@saac Hi saac. I think the best way I can describe my thoughts regarding the problems with GR is like the following...

remember many many centuries ago, when the greatest minds of the day believed the earth was at the centre of the universe. And their observations fitted very well with their theories. I mean, they looked up, and it was "OBVIOUS" the earth was at the centre of the cosmos because all the stars and planets were orbiting around the earth in the night sky, even the Sun during the day! Their theories fitted very well, but not perfectly! But there were anomalies that they couldn't explain, notably the retrograde motions of the planets orbits. Well I feel a very similar phenomenon is happening with modern day scientists. I feel they're blindly loyal to GR because it explains a lot of what they see so so well. But just like in ancient times, there's anomalies with their theories, notably when you get down to the quantum level of mass and energy, and gravity etc. 

I hope this explains well enough where i'm coming from regarding GR my friend!

[Xilman]

4 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

@saac Hi saac. I think the best way I can describe my thoughts regarding the problems with GR is like the following...

remember many many centuries ago, when the greatest minds of the day believed the earth was at the centre of the universe. And their observations fitted very well with their theories. I mean, they looked up, and it was "OBVIOUS" the earth was at the centre of the cosmos because all the stars and planets were orbiting around the earth in the night sky, even the Sun during the day! Their theories fitted very well, but not perfectly! But there were anomalies that they couldn't explain, notably the retrograde motions of the planets orbits. Well I feel a very similar phenomenon is happening with modern day scientists. I feel they're blindly loyal to GR because it explains a lot of what they see so so well. But just like in ancient times, there's anomalies with their theories, notably when you get down to the quantum level of mass and energy, and gravity etc. 

I hope this explains well enough where i'm coming from regarding GR my friend!

Essentially every scientist agrees with you fully.  The incompatibility between GR and QM has been recognized for decades and has been a topic of intense theoretical research ever since.  The front runners to replace GR appear to be String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, though those are not the only ones being taken seriously.

[wesdon1]

8 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, is just such a theory. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

It explains somethings really rather well; other things not so well. That is true of all theories.

So your "scientists have stay blindly loyal to Einstein's theories" is rather harsh in my opinion.

@Xilman Hi xilman. I accept my comment "scientists staying blindly loyal" do come across rather harsh. My counter argument to this, is impo scientists literally need to "rip up the whole book" and start from scratch, because impo, and it is only my opinion, they are wasting time trying to reconcile GR and QM. 

[andrew s]

Just now, wesdon1 said:

feel they're blindly loyal to GR because it explains a lot of what they see so so well. But just like in ancient times, there's anomalies with their theories, notably when you get down to the quantum level of mass and energy, and gravity etc. 

Well it also predicted thing we had not seen before. The bending of light by mass and  frame dragging are too good examples.  

It also has an elegant solution to dark energy namely the cosmological constant representing  a minute net curvature of space time. (Not all scientists accept it though.)

If you follow the literature you will see many many papers on modification or alternatives to GR and or MOND type theories. The test is to find one that explains all GR does and more.

We are still waiting.

There is no blind loyalty every scientist working in this area would love to get the next Nobel prize for unseating GR.

Ripping up the book and starting again is very hard.  I think that's what string theorists tried to do. To my mind the issue is we have very good theories that for all practical purposes meet our needs. What we lack is experimental results that force a change  in thinking like the MM aeither experiment and the discovery of wave particle duality. 

Regards Andrew 

[ollypenrice]

Let's think about the word 'before' in the phrase 'Before the Big Bang.'

'Before' requires there to be a point on the timeline, a point which separates before from after on that timeline. (The present is also such a point, but it is constantly moving, whereas the point which separates before from after can be arbitrarily defined and fixed.)

If we consider time to be a dimension which came into being at the big bang, there is no 'before' which can be placed on it because that dimension wasn't there. Accepting this isn't easy, but who wants easy? The idea that time wasn't there doesn't necessarily mean that nothing was there. Existence may have been going on in different dimensions, meaning that there was nothing 'before' the BB but there may have been something 'outside' it.

Also, the idea that there is a past, a moving present and a future is what kind of idea?  It is, dear friends, a theory and it is a theory which has taken some heavy knocks from theoretical physicists... I'm convinced we need a more generalized theory of time.

Olly

[Ags]

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

If we consider time to be a dimension which came into being at the big bang, there is no 'before' which can be placed on it because that dimension wasn't there. Accepting this isn't easy, but who wants easy? The idea that time wasn't there doesn't necessarily mean that nothing was there. Existence may have been going on in different dimensions, meaning that there was nothing 'before' the BB but there may have been something 'outside' it.

That is brilliant!

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Well considering it is the one and only post from the OP it has certainly stirred everybody up 🤣

Steve

[andrew s]

30 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm convinced we need a more generalized theory of time.

I have spent a life time reading about and trying to understand time. Alas I am none the wiser.

I have a bookshelf full of tomes on the topic from psychologist,  philosophers and physicist each with there own take on it.

It is enigmatic in the extreme,  you can only measure it via a clock of some sort, it is not an observable in QM unlike space.

However,  it is the one continuous parameter that spans GR, SR and QED without modification.  

I had reached a similar conclusion to you that t = 0 does not exist just as the ends of an open interval on the real line don't include the end points.

In GR singularities are outside our space time - you are spot on there.

In the end I am left with what Einstein's I said "time is what a clock measures "

Regards Andrew 

Edited August 24, 2023 by andrew s

[andrew s]

13 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Well considering it is the one and only post from the OP it has certainly stirred everybody up 🤣

Steve

A legacy few can aspire to. Regards Andrew 

[saac]

Our principal theories do seem to attract tall poppy syndrome style critiques.  I think that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding and a lot of misconceptions popularised by pop science. I've never applied GR in anger (would not know how), but I have applied other theories. I've used Euler's theory on stress loading of beams, Prandtl's theory describing laminar flow, both in practical engineering settings. Before you apply a theory you first set about to understand the limits of the theory, the regimes in which the theory provides a reliable description. You also need to define what you mean by reliable - what level of reliability or confidence are you looking for.  There's the rub, chase 100% confidence then you are chasing a will-o-the-wisp where you will waste money, time and effort. You will also, and without good reason, discard a perfectly adequate description of nature. So GR , does it have limitations, it goes without saying of course it does. Does it work, is it any good ? Without question of course it is, as has been said already, it has made perfectly sound and verifiable predictions - not only does this thing work it works exceedingly well.  If you are trying to apply it outside of its limitation then you don't know what you are doing and your criticism is unfounded.  I don't think that is what is happening with modern cosmology with respect to considerations of dark energy/dark matter as examples.  Our well tested theories, applied within known limits, are pointing to something we need to better define; this is not blind adherence, this is science at its best, this is how we advance. 

Jim 

Edited August 25, 2023 by saac

[saac]

25 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Well considering it is the one and only post from the OP it has certainly stirred everybody up 🤣

Steve

It's still cloudy here, we can be grateful to the OP for something to occupy the time. 

Jim

[saac]

18 minutes ago, andrew s said:

In the end I am left with what Einstein's I said "time is what a clock measures "

Regards Andrew 

also what we will never have enough of!

Jim

[Mr Spock]

As NGT once said, "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."

[ollypenrice]

38 minutes ago, saac said:

also what we will never have enough of!

Jim

Oh, I'm not so sure. I adhere to the phrase, 'Enough is enough...'

It would only be a small paraphrase of Einstein to say, 'Time is what our body measures...' 😁

Olly

[bingevader]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Let's think about the word 'before' in the phrase 'Before the Big Bang.'

'Before' requires there to be a point on the timeline, a point which separates before from after on that timeline. (The present is also such a point, but it is constantly moving, whereas the point which separates before from after can be arbitrarily defined and fixed.)

If we consider time to be a dimension which came into being at the big bang, there is no 'before' which can be placed on it because that dimension wasn't there. Accepting this isn't easy, but who wants easy? The idea that time wasn't there doesn't necessarily mean that nothing was there. Existence may have been going on in different dimensions, meaning that there was nothing 'before' the BB but there may have been something 'outside' it.

Also, the idea that there is a past, a moving present and a future is what kind of idea?  It is, dear friends, a theory and it is a theory which has taken some heavy knocks from theoretical physicists... I'm convinced we need a more generalized theory of time.

Olly

We can do nothing but consider.

How do we know that time as a dimension only come into 'being' (?) at the big bang?

If we take that as the premise for discarding it, then what of these other dimensions you mention?

If they existed, then why not time as a dimension also?

Or the 'outside' theory doesn't work.

There was nothing at all (including time), or there was something, and then all somethings are possible.

 

[billhinge]

52 minutes ago, saac said:

Our principal theories do seem to attract tall poppy syndrome style critiques.  I think that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding and a lot of misconceptions popularised by pop science. I've never applied GR in anger (would not know how),

Admittedly challenging but you can do a few 'simple' mathematical examples (below) - there are 3 simplified problems at the end

 

Plus if you understand Python there are a couple of libraries on GR https://docs.einsteinpy.org/en/stable/examples/Symbolically Understanding Christoffel Symbol and Riemann Curvature Tensor using EinsteinPy.html#

Admittedly you need to get your head around relativity concepts and tensors first  which may take several months if you are doing self study (you need proper GR books and read the boring small print about Einstein Summation Convention first 😉 ). I knew maths up to BSc level geodesics but GR is perfectly doable once you realise what you were taught about orthogonal unit vectors at degree level was a simplification and get Newtonian analogies out of your head (I found the forgetting Newtonian gravity ideas the hard part)

Sean Carroll's video's don't shy from maths as he derives Einstein's equations but he gives excellent explanations of the reasoning behind them and the limitations

Pop books while good for generating interest  can equally confuse, but SC's pop GR book is good and a mix of maths starting from Pythagoras to the Riemann tensor  akin to the following video simplified, but he also writes one of the standard text books on the subject if you prefer more maths 

 

 

 

[Xilman]

Agreed. Newtonian dynamics and Euclidean geometry is so brain-washed into us from childhood that truly grokking that they are only special cases can be extremely difficult.

Even after you achieve that level of enlightenment, the concept of a (-,+,+,+) metric can cause difficulty. The idea that a vector can be non-zero and yet have zero length is profoundly non-intuitive until you recalibrate your intuition.

I am an immense fan of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation, very widely referred to as MTW. Fully understanding it takes a mathematics level somewhat above A-leverl standard but does not require a physics degree. I have a degree in chemiastry, for instance.

[andrew s]

13 minutes ago, Xilman said:

I have a degree in chemiastry, for instance.

We can't all be perfect 😊 Regards Andrew