3
   

Origins of the Universe

 
 
John316
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2015 08:58 pm
I have a question for those who believe that the Universe began with the Big Bang, estimates of the size of the Universe is approximately 13 billion light years from the center of the known Universe to the outer most edges, where they can detect Galaxies, they also use this to determine the age of the Universe, which is approximately 13 billion years, my question is if all matter in the Universe was created by a single explosion, then why is there Galaxies and stars spread from the center of the Universe to the outer limits of the Universe? If an explosion occurred then wouldn't all the debris spread outward, creating a circular band, and in 13 billion years the band would be at what they have determined to be the outer edges of the known universe.
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2015 04:29 am
@John316,
Because the Big Bang is an expansion of Spacetime. It is not an explosion of material within pre-existing space.
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2016 08:54 pm
@rosborne979,
If space time is stretching, wouldn't the yardstick be stretching to?
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2016 09:02 pm
@brianjakub,
The strong nuclear force and electromagnetism exceed the expansion at this scale. So space expands, while objects resist.
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2016 09:25 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
The strong nuclear force and electromagnetism exceed the expansion at this scale. So space expands, while objects resist.
At this scale today or always? How do we know this to be true. Can we measure how much space is stretching compared to matter now, or at any time. What if some of the matter was at the outer edge soon after, or even before the big bang, and the yardsticks are stretching? Could we tell the difference?
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2016 09:44 pm
@brianjakub,
I believe the information we have is derived from the mathematical model. I'm not sure actual measurements at our local scale are possible.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2016 09:44 pm
If you really want to understand cosmology. Leave the internet, go to your local college and enroll in a physics degree program. To understand the science at all you need a good basis on math through vector calculus, as well as a foundation of Physics.

You can do this, but you have to do the work. If you don't do the work, then you just have to trust the people who have spent the 8-12 years of study to master math and physics.

Without doing the work, you can't possibly understand it. And no, you can't poke holes in something that you don't understand. Sorry.

I would say the same thing about jet airplanes. Airplanes are designed using vector calculus and electronics and other advanced mathematics, science and engineering that take years to understand.

If you are willing to risk your life to this science you don't have a clue about when you step on an airplane, then you already know how to trust scientists in a field that you haven't taken the time to master yourself.


Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2016 03:46 am
Look at the author's screen name--John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That's a battle cry for the Jesus freaks. I seriously doubt that this individual came here to learn anything about science, and i doubt even more that he or she is interested in studying mathematics and science at a community college or university. I think it most probable that this individual came here to cast doubt on the prevailing cosmological model used by science because he or she sees it as a threat to his or her core belief.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2016 08:43 am
@maxdancona,
It takes 8 - 12 years to understand the answer to the question," how do we know matter isn't stretching with space?" it might take years to understand the vector calculus to figure the change in air pressure above and below an airplane wing by the shape of the Wings. Wilber wright did not need to understand Vector calculus to build an airplane and understand how an airplane works, he just had to imagine what an airplane looks like and then build it. If he would have understood Vector calculus he probably could have made the shape of his first wing a little better,but he did not need it to build a plane. I can explain that the top of the wing being curved compared to the bottom of the wing being straight lowers the air pressure above the wing causing lift. I suspect the math determining the inflation of matter compared to the inflation of space is mighty complex, I also suspect the picture isn't much more complex then understanding how a common airplane wing works. space is inflating, so what's inflated? when matter inflates the space between the quarks and electrons inflates, or the protons and the electrons themselves inflate. If the strong force holds a proton in an atom, and keeps it from inflating, how does it do it? Air pressure lifts a plane, what holds a proton in an atom? will 12 years of physics give me an answer to that question? if so could somebody summarizing like the airplane wing summary?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2016 09:06 am
@brianjakub,
It is impossible to understand the phrase "space is inflating" without understanding Vector Calculus. People will try to come up with explanations... but there is a reason that civilization invented Universities... as human knowledge increases it takes a longer time to master it.

It is impossible to understand strong force without understanding Schroedinger's equation.

You can say that the top of the wing being curved causes lift. But that doesn't give you much of an explanation of Bernoulli, nor would it allow you to do any useful work in avionics. The Wright brothers spent a lot of time studying, and writing about mathematics... they did their homework.

You take scientists explanation that "the top of the wing being curved ... creates lift" even though you don't really know the math behind it or have taken the time to study why and how this principle works.

You will have to take the cosmologists explanation the same way. Until you have learned enough understand what a Reimann tensor is, you aren't going to understand what "space stretching" even means or how we would detect it.

brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2016 09:27 pm
@maxdancona,
max
Quote:
It is impossible to understand the phrase "space is inflating" without understanding Vector Calculus. People will try to come up with explanations... but there is a reason that civilization invented Universities... as human knowledge increases it takes a longer time to master it.
wiki
Quote:
The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation;[3] however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position.[4][5][6] The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.[7]
How about saying physicists can't explain inflation, because it is a mathematical model which can't be explained in terms we can envision in reality. Or can it, and they just don't like what it looks like?

max
Quote:
You can say that the top of the wing being curved causes lift. But that doesn't give you much of an explanation of Bernoulli, nor would it allow you to do any useful work in avionics. The Wright brothers spent a lot of time studying, and writing about mathematics... they did their homework.
corescholar
Quote:
Although no record of the exact calculations exists, the Wrights averaged a series of results
from a glider in 1902. Combined with their wind tunnel tests to determine cL and cD, by
directly measuring the drag on the glider using a spring scale and restraining ropes, they
were then able to directly calculate the Smeaton coefficient k from the equation for drag
[McFarland, 574]. 29
L = kSV2cL The equation for lift predicts forces, but does not give us an image. The wright brothers used real airfoils in wind tunnels. The wind tunnel was real, and they could see how it works. We can illustrate it simply in this animation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karman_trefftz.gif
Quote:
Atomic orbitals can be the hydrogen-like "orbitals" which are exact solutions to the Schrödinger equation for a hydrogen-like "atom" (i.e., an atom with one electron).
The Schrodinger equation, which also explains and predicts, is only mathematical with no structure in reality to explain it.
Quote:
The Schrodinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wave function is. Interpretations of quantum mechanics address questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
The equation cannot explain why the strong nuclear force exists, but it can explain what an atomic orbital looks like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#/media/File:D_orbitals.svg This actually shows what orbitals for a hydrogen like atom looks like. Since the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, while the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for lift and Schrodinger equation are known, what better place to speculate than on a forum. At least here you are anonymous, and your credentials (a doctorate or professorship in physics) are not on the line. So lets speculate what a higgs boson or the higgs field looks like. The higgs field and boson, more than likely have a physical structure that is underpinning the shape of the atomic orbitals, while also being the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation. What do you think it looks like?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2016 09:46 pm
@brianjakub,
You are arguing by cutting and pasting from wikipedia.

The point I am making is that people who have actually done the work, have mastered vector calculus, wrestled with Riemann tensors, read through the current theories, done many of the experiments and understand the theories and the arguments behind them believe in the Big Bang.

You have skimmed over wikipedia without having studied the math, read the history, read the papers, done the experiments or worked to understand the theories. and yet you are willing to disregard the people who have actually taken the considerable time it takes to understand these things.

Do you not see the ridiculousness in what you are doing?

(By the way, ... the phrase "actually what atomic orbitals look like" is ridiculous. Anyone who has taken a course that covers quantum chemistry would laugh at this statement. These diagrams represent solutions to Schrodinger's equation. It has nothing to do with how orbitals "look".)



brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 08:20 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
(By the way, ... the phrase "actually what atomic orbitals look like" is ridiculous. Anyone who has taken a course that covers quantum chemistry would laugh at this statement. These diagrams represent solutions to Schrodinger's equation. It has nothing to do with how orbitals "look".)
An atomic orbital is a statistical analysis predicting the most likely place an electron can be.

Wiki
Quote:
An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus.
Is this statement wrong? Does wiki need to be edited? It is footnoted. What does specific region mean? That region can pictured, which is what I linked to. The math predicted that shape. Are we to ignore the shape the math represents? We can I guess. I realize an electron orbital is impossible to actually visualize physically. Can't see it with an electron microscope. Can we talk about the region the math represents, like I did with the animation of the wing? Or, can we at least discuss why it's meaningless to do so?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 08:28 am
@brianjakub,
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/simg57.gif

This is the equation where those oribitals come from. It is a solution for ψ (in three spatial dimensions). If you want to discuss the meaning of this solution, then you have to understand where it comes from. And you have to understand the Physics behind De Broglie waves.

Without a basic understanding of the concepts behind De Broglie waves, you can't possibly have a meaningful discussion of what they mean.

You get this knowledge by studying math and the foundations of Physics. You can do this, but it takes a few years... the math is advanced and the Physics was developed over thousands of years of human study.

You don't get this knowledge by skimming over things you found in Google.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 09:09 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
You don't get this knowledge by skimming over things you found in Google.
Can I ask you 2 questions? Are all orbital configurations for the real hydrogen-like wave functions up to 7s, provided on wiki meaningless because, they really don't represent a specific region? Or are the regions depicted not really related to the actual location of an electron?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 09:13 am
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,
Baffle them with bullshit.

Both sides are usually guilty.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 09:17 am
@Leadfoot,
On one side are the scientists who have spent 8 to 12 years studying the advanced math and science require to master modern physics. These are the people doing the experiments, developing new technologies, and making testable predictions about the universe.

Who is on the other side?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 09:19 am
@brianjakub,
Of course they are not meaningless. The are the solutions for Schrodinger's equation in 3 dimensions.

If you think that is meaningless, then you don't understand De Broglie waves.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 10:26 am
@maxdancona,
One problem is with those who say "If only you studied and understood ________ (fill in the blank) you would see how all these mysteries are explained and add up."
This is one side.

In reality, the men actually doing the applicable leading edge science are often the ones saying these things are a mystery we do not currently understand.

The 'other side' is equally guilty. They fabricate concepts based on fragments of partially understood (or misunderstood) science mixed with pure speculation.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 10:58 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
In reality, the men actually doing the applicable leading edge science are often the ones saying these things are a mystery we do not currently understand.

They aren't discussing leading edge science. Max is reciting baseline accepted atomic physics which hasn't changed fundamentally in decades. And Brian is expounding on his personal pet conjecture without acknowledging its obvious conflicts with proven science.

Then you jump in and proclaim that "both sides are usually guilty" of brilliance and bullshit as though that had any relation to this particular exchange, or to any other between knowledge and ignorance. It doesn't.

What was your point, or was it just to try to diminish the value of knowledge and education and science, compared to having faith in ones own beliefs.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Origins of the Universe
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 02:11:16