The Universe has been around FOREVER...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
This makes more sense to me than the big bang. The only theories about why it banged were mathematical, which isn't exactly evidence.

Perhaps there aren't really multiple big bangs like the article says. Maybe once in a while some super sized black holes explodes with the kind of effect we see (aftermath/glow, etc.).
 
I've actually been saying for a year or so that we have no reason to assume there was a beginning or "creation" of the universe.

Of course, I have no physics or metaphysics knowledge whatsoever, so it was just a random hypothesis.
 
Denny Crane said:
This makes more sense to me than the big bang. The only theories about why it banged were mathematical, which isn't exactly evidence.

Perhaps there aren't really multiple big bangs like the article says. Maybe once in a while some super sized black holes explodes with the kind of effect we see (aftermath/glow, etc.).
Click to expand...

haha what?
 
BengalDuck said:
haha what?
Click to expand...

What don't you get?

The concentric circles look like ripples in a pond.

People listen to radio waves and hear the echo of the big bang. But are they listening to radio waves that started 13.7B years ago, or from longer than that (or shorter, even)?

Another way to think of it as lighting a match. While it's lit, you feel the heat. When it goes out and you light another one, you feel the heat. So you feel the heat from 2x match burn times.

The mathematics and physics of the big bang are quite similar to black holes. Singularities, etc.
 
It actually makes total sense. Nature is cyclical - months, seasons, years, salmon spawning, bears hibernating - all cycles. Makes sense the Universe is cyclical too.
 
MINNEAPOLIS—Following decades of allegations from the 44-year-old data processor, the vast conglomeration of all matter and energy known as the universe admitted Tuesday that it was directly responsible for every single hardship in the life of Dave Schwartz, and apologized for continually foiling him at every turn.

The cosmos admits it could have given Schwartz good organizational skills but deliberately chose not to.
"Dave has good reason to say the universe is conspiring against him, because, well, it is," said the cosmos, acknowledging that it has thwarted Schwartz's hopes and dreams from the moment of his conception. "He may sound melodramatic when he goes on and on about the whole world having turned against him, but he's actually not that far off. The forces of time and nature genuinely want him to fail at life, and fail hard."

"So, yes, his anger and frustration are totally understandable," the universe added. "Pointless and futile, but totally understandable."

Sources close to Schwartz have long speculated that his failure to find success in work, love, and life stemmed from his own poor decisions and lack of resolve, but the very source of all causality verified Tuesday that, just as Schwartz has always claimed, the blame for each misstep and unfortunate circumstance rests squarely on the cosmos's shoulders.

Using the metaphysical concepts of blind chance and cosmic predetermination, as well as other powers beyond human comprehension, the universe claimed to have "done its best" to increase the earthly burden on Schwartz, carefully engineering everything from his difficulty concentrating for more than five minutes, to his receding hairline, to the time he threw up on the playground after eating a whole bag of candy.

"We've pretty much been riding Dave's ass from day one," confirmed the eternal concept of fate, which Schwartz has specifically, and accurately, blamed over the years for his inability to find a decent parking spot anywhere, ever. "Like that time he was dating the perfect woman and we introduced him to Deborah, who lured him away from the love of his life and proceeded to make his next two years a psychosexual nightmare of neediness and betrayal. That was all us."

"Oh, yeah, and then we rigged it so she dumped him," added fate, chuckling. "By the way, Deborah's doing great now. Rich husband, two beautiful kids, house on Martha's Vineyard—we set her up real nice."

According to the universe, it has for more than four decades enjoyed "torturing" Dave by presenting him with desirable life options—such as that big promotion at work, or the fantastic deal on that 1998 Mazda Miata—and then placing them just far enough out of his reach that they remain unattainable.

In addition, numerous ethereal essences and karmic forces stepped forward this week to come clean about "really piling it on" during periods of Schwartz's life when he already had enough on his plate and couldn't be expected to take much more cosmic punishment without snapping.

"Back in '02, we purposefully made enough things go right for Dave that he actually managed to convince himself that fate didn't exist and that the universe was a hopeful place full of limitless possibilities, all of which could be his as long as he believed in himself and maintained a positive outlook," the universe said. "Two days later—boom—we slam him with an IRS audit and some back pain."

"Totally threw him for a loop," added the whole of all existence. "He literally looked up at us and asked us, 'Why? Why are you doing this to me?'"

When questioned Tuesday as to the motive for its actions against Schwartz, the universe told reporters that it had no good answer except to speculate that perhaps its essential nature was simply "cruel and meaningless or something."

At press time, Dave Schwartz was stuck in a traffic jam with severe indigestion.

(from The Onion)
 
VanillaGorilla said:
I've actually been saying for a year or so that we have no reason to assume there was a beginning or "creation" of the universe.

Of course, I have no physics or metaphysics knowledge whatsoever, so it was just a random hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Bubble burster, you're not the first =P
 
Denny Crane said:
What don't you get?

The concentric circles look like ripples in a pond.

People listen to radio waves and hear the echo of the big bang. But are they listening to radio waves that started 13.7B years ago, or from longer than that (or shorter, even)?

Another way to think of it as lighting a match. While it's lit, you feel the heat. When it goes out and you light another one, you feel the heat. So you feel the heat from 2x match burn times.

The mathematics and physics of the big bang are quite similar to black holes. Singularities, etc.
Click to expand...

I would believe in superstring/octonian mechanics if they found evidence. Thus a big bang would start from membrane collisions as I understood. And I'd like to point out that this isn't a complete change in accepted canon. This is just a couple papers saying they interpret data this way.
 
westnob said:
I would believe in superstring/octonian mechanics if they found evidence. Thus a big bang would start from membrane collisions as I understood. And I'd like to point out that this isn't a complete change in accepted canon. This is just a couple papers saying they interpret data this way.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, though there is evidence that challenges the accepted canon. See the picture on the WWW page linked in the OP.
 
Denny Crane said:
This makes more sense to me than the big bang. The only theories about why it banged were mathematical, which isn't exactly evidence.

Perhaps there aren't really multiple big bangs like the article says. Maybe once in a while some super sized black holes explodes with the kind of effect we see (aftermath/glow, etc.).
Click to expand...

It is and isn't evidence. That is why they are running the particle accellerator experiements which is to verify mathematical theory. Atomic theory was once mathematics too. Now we have nuclear bombs and atomic energy plants. Most people who worked on it knew it would work before it was actually finished.
 
hasoos said:
It is and isn't evidence. That is why they are running the particle accellerator experiements which is to verify mathematical theory. Atomic theory was once mathematics too. Now we have nuclear bombs and atomic energy plants. Most people who worked on it knew it would work before it was actually finished.
Click to expand...

Before they detonated the first A-Bomb (test), many scientists thought it might incinerate the entire atmosphere. They didn't have the math to show how many kilotons the blast would be, etc.

Einstein's theories were proven (mostly) true through all sorts of observations. Like the clocks in the GPS satellites not keeping the same time as clocks on the earth, or e=mc**2 and the A-Bomb.

This new theory is Occam's Razor compared to the solitary big bang. The whole idea that there was some magic that caused rapid expansion, then a rapid deceleration, followed by acceleration again is based upon that being the only way to make sense of the big bang theory.

The Universe is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating), which is an observation that fits the new theory (each new bang adds acceleration). The concentric circles in the picture I mentioned were predicted by the theory and support the theory.
 
Denny Crane said:
Before they detonated the first A-Bomb (test), many scientists thought it might incinerate the entire atmosphere. They didn't have the math to show how many kilotons the blast would be, etc.

Einstein's theories were proven (mostly) true through all sorts of observations. Like the clocks in the GPS satellites not keeping the same time as clocks on the earth, or e=mc**2 and the A-Bomb.

This new theory is Occam's Razor compared to the solitary big bang. The whole idea that there was some magic that caused rapid expansion, then a rapid deceleration, followed by acceleration again is based upon that being the only way to make sense of the big bang theory.

The Universe is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating), which is an observation that fits the new theory (each new bang adds acceleration). The concentric circles in the picture I mentioned were predicted by the theory and support the theory.
Click to expand...

There are also theories that vaguely use "black energy" and other dimensions to explain the accelerated expansion.
 
westnob said:
There are also theories that vaguely use "black energy" and other dimensions to explain the accelerated expansion.
Click to expand...

And Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations to "make them work."

There is no evidence of dark matter or dark energy (or dark gravity!), just a need for it to be there because the scientists can't explain what they observe and what they observe doesn't fit their current model.

;)
 
Denny Crane said:
And Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations to "make them work."

There is no evidence of dark matter or dark energy (or dark gravity!), just a need for it to be there because the scientists can't explain what they observe and what they observe doesn't fit their current model.

;)
Click to expand...

Yeah I see some similar problems with string theory. Scientists just add stuff randomly, X number of dimensions, when their theories don't pan out.
 
huevonkiller said:
Yeah I see some similar problems with string theory. Scientists just add stuff randomly, X number of dimensions, when their theories don't pan out.
Click to expand...

That's it exactly. Scientists are totally random. It's like, "well, can't explain that, must be due to some supernatural being who hates homosexuals and idol worshippers".

barfo
 
barfo said:
That's it exactly. Scientists are totally random. It's like, "well, can't explain that, must be due to some supernatural being who hates homosexuals and idol worshippers".
Click to expand...

Wait, what? That doesn't sound like science at all!

And @huevonkiller...they don't randomly add dimensions. The things they add are things that make the math work. A lot of theoretical physics is math ahead of the observational data, as our level of technology won't allow for observations on such a tiny (or massive/distant, as the case may be) level. So physicists create theories that work mathematically and future observations will either validate or disprove the theories.
 
Minstrel said:
Wait, what? That doesn't sound like science at all!

And @huevonkiller...they don't randomly add dimensions. The things they add are things that make the math work. A lot of theoretical physics is math ahead of the observational data, as our level of technology won't allow for observations on such a tiny (or massive/distant, as the case may be) level. So physicists create theories that work mathematically and future observations will either validate or disprove the theories.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'm just not sure it is possible to understand the quantum mechanics of gravity, and it has been around for a while (30ish years). The theoretical physics in this case is too arbitrary for me to believe, 10-26 dimensions? Meh.

I'm not advocating accepting religion as science either. ;) I just think standards should be higher for theoretical physics, and science in general.
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
What don't you get?

The concentric circles look like ripples in a pond.

People listen to radio waves and hear the echo of the big bang. But are they listening to radio waves that started 13.7B years ago, or from longer than that (or shorter, even)?

Another way to think of it as lighting a match. While it's lit, you feel the heat. When it goes out and you light another one, you feel the heat. So you feel the heat from 2x match burn times.

The mathematics and physics of the big bang are quite similar to black holes. Singularities, etc.
Click to expand...

the idea that a black hole can "explode."
 
huevonkiller said:
Yeah I'm just not sure it is possible to understand the quantum mechanics of gravity, and it has been around for a while (30ish years). The theoretical physics in this case is too arbitrary for me to believe, 10-26 dimensions? Meh.

I'm not advocating accepting religion as science either. ;) I just think standards should be higher for theoretical physics, and science in general.
Click to expand...

OMG! Scientists discovered more things they haven't explained yet, but explained everything from 200 years ago they wondered about!? WTF! work faster you dumb scienstists, GOD! 30 years is like older than like the Beatles... wait no... [green font]
 
Haha ok, this isn't the theory of gravity. Relax no one is getting anywhere with this thing.

Just because you're failing with a theory, it doesn't mean everything will be alright later. Further let me educate you on the details since you want to be so stubborn about it.

westnob said:
OMG! Scientists discovered more things they haven't explained yet, but explained everything from 200 years ago they wondered about!? WTF! work faster you dumb scienstists, GOD! 30 years is like older than like the Beatles... wait no... [green font]
Click to expand...

Wow this is completely naive of you. Not every theory, especially this particular one, is fleshed out appropriately. I'd say this isn't even a theory and you'll see why below.

String theorists ask mathematicians to believe in the existence of some wonderful new sort of geometry that will eventually provide an explanation for M-theory. But without a serious proposal for the underlying new geometry, this argument is unconvincing.

The experimental situation is similarly bleak. It is best described by Wolfgang Pauli's famous phrase, "It's not even wrong." String theory not only makes no predictions about physical phenomena at experimentally accessible energies, it makes no precise predictions whatsoever. Even if someone were to figure out tomorrow how to build an accelerator capable of reaching the astronomically high energies at which particles are no longer supposed to appear as points, string theorists would be able to do no better than give qualitative guesses about what such a machine might show. At the moment string theory cannot be falsified by any conceivable experimental result.

There is, however, one physical prediction that string theory does make: the value of a quantity called the cosmological constant (a measure of the energy of the vacuum). Recent observations of distant supernovae indicate that this quantity is very small but not zero. A simple argument in string theory indicates that the cosmological constant should be at least around 55 orders of magnitude larger than the observed value. This is perhaps the most incorrect experimental prediction ever made by any physical theory that anyone has taken seriously.

With such a dramatic lack of experimental support, string theorists often attempt to make an aesthetic argument, professing that the theory is strikingly "elegant" or "beautiful." Because there is no well-defined theory to judge, it's hard to know what to make of these assertions, and one is reminded of another quotation from Pauli. Annoyed by Werner Heisenberg's claims that, though lacking in some specifics, he had a wonderful unified theory (he didn't), Pauli sent letters to some of his physicist friends each containing a blank rectangle and the text, "This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing." Because no one knows what "M-theory" is, its beauty is that of Pauli's painting. Even if a consistent M-theory can be found, it may very well turn out to be something of great complexity and ugliness.

What exactly can be said for string theory? In recent years, something called the Maldacena conjecture has led to some success in using string theory as a tool in understanding certain quantum field theories that don't include gravity. Mathematically, string theory has covered a lot of ground over the past 18 years and has led to many impressive new results. The concept of "mirror symmetry" has been very fruitful in algebraic geometry, and conformal field theory has opened up a new, fascinating and very deep area of mathematics. Unfortunately for physics, these mathematically interesting parts of string theory do little to connect it with the real world.

String theory has, however, been spectacularly successful on one frontýpublic relations. For example, it's been the subject of the best-selling popular science book of the past couple years: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, one of my colleagues at Columbia. The National Science Foundation is funding a series of NOVA programs based on his accessible and inspiring book. What is more, the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, organized last spring a conference to train high school teachers in string theory so that they can teach it to their students. And The New York Times and other popular publications regularly run articles on the latest developments in string theory.

It's easy enough to see why the general public is taken with string theory, but one wonders why so many particle theorists are committed to working on it. Sheldon Glashow, a string-theory skeptic and Nobel-laureate physicist at Harvard, describes string theory as "the only game in town." Why this is so perhaps has something to do with the sociology of physics.

During much of the 20th century there were times when theoretical particle physics was conducted quite successfully in a somewhat faddish manner. That is, there was often only one game in town. Experimentalists regularly discovered new and unexpected phenomena, each time leading to a flurry of theoretical activity (and sometimes to Nobel prizes). This pattern ended in the mid-'70s with the overwhelming experimental confirmation and widespread acceptance of the Standard Model of particle physics. Since then, particle physics has been a victim of its own success, with theoreticians looking for the next fad to pursueýand finding it in string theory.

One reason that only one new theory has blossomed is that graduate students, postdocs and untenured junior faculty interested in speculative areas of mathematical physics beyond the Standard Model are under tremendous pressures. For them, the idea of starting to work on an untested new idea that may very well fail looks a lot like a quick route to professional suicide. So some people who do not believe in string theory work on it anyway. They may be intimidated by the fact that certain leading string theorists are undeniably geniuses. Another motivation is the natural desire to maintain a job, get grants, go to conferences and generally have an intellectual community in which to participate. Hence, few stray very far from the main line of inquiry.
Click to expand...

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2002/3/is-string-theory-even-wrong/2

You're upset with me about a religion right now, there's a bunch of bogus theories about the universe. Guess what, it might not be possible to understand the quantum mechanics of an invisible particle, that's not the biggest leap of faith.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top