Da big bang

[PBI]

Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?

Many examples of supporting evidence have been given in this thread (galactic red shift, cosmic microwave backgroud, ratio of protons/neutrons, agreement of predicted age of universe with age of oldest known stars). What more would be needed to convince you? Perhaps you could give an example of something which you might consider sufficient proof, if it were observed?

The Big Bang theory is the simply the theory which explains the above observed phenomena most accurately and with the fewest assumptions. Thus is it accepted as the correct theory. Of course, if another theory is found which can explain the observations better or with fewer assumptions, it will replace the Big Bang theory; however I am unaware of any predictions made by the Big Bang theory which are not observed.

[cmacq]

As you may understand there are several reasons why redshift does not support the big bang theory. Turning to CMB, I think you’re actually referring to cosmic inflation. More simply, an exercise in how one provides another theory that works well on paper, but may not in fact explain the observation. Finally, by ratio of protons/neutrons I assume you’re citing BBN? So, there are those that view these three as proof??? Actually, because of the conceptual flaw that is inherit, I find it difficult to comprehend that anyone could except, let alone believe in the big bang, as opposed to any other theory.

This is of course my opinion, and you are welcome not share it.

[Papewaio]

Actually, the question was not about space, it was directed at Papewaio's statement that 'Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter'...

Yet, as you say...

the problem with describing the physical attributes of time is, it's we humans that imagine such as an abstract. It is not that time has physical attributes, per se. Rather it is a process, that humans perceive within a relative context. If one changes the context, ones perception of the process is thus altered.

As we perceive it, time has no physical attributes, as a process that represents change, or in a greater context the interaction of energy and mass. Simply put, it is = in the mass–energy equivalence statement. Still, I'm very sure that I'm so incorrect.

I'd like you to prove that time isn't a physical entity, then you can move onto mass and length.

Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?

And your better theory is? The Big Bang is like knowing that stones drop, I wouldn't rate it the same as Newton's Laws or the more refined Special Relativity... Its the current best fit, I'm sure many want to see a better model (one based on functions not empirical evidence... there is a snobby preference that mathematically derived and then supported by evidence is more 'pure' then just fitting out the puzzle).

]As you may understand there are several reasons why redshift does not support the big bang theory. Turning to CMB, I think you’re actually referring to cosmic inflation. More simply, an exercise in how one provides another theory that works well on paper, but may not in fact explain the observation. Finally, by ratio of protons/neutrons I assume you’re citing BBN? So, there are those that view these three as proof??? Actually, because of the conceptual flaw that is inherit, I find it difficult to comprehend that anyone could except, let alone believe in the big bang, as opposed to any other theory.

This is of course my opinion, and you are welcome not share it.

Actually I'd say the ratio of hydrogen to helium is more along fitting the model of the Big Bang while the ratio of protons to neutrons would give us a length of time before the universe cooled down... horse vs cart ideas/ outcomes vs facts kind of thing... the model explains why we have massive amounts of hydrogen vs the rest, while the ratio of protons to neutrons gives us a timing.

[cmacq]

I'd like you to prove that time isn't a physical entity, then you can move onto mass and length.

"Time" You want me to prove something that exists as a perception, only in the human mind? Actually, I cut to the chase rather than deal with a horsecart, and sorry, but I don't have the time to untangle the rest of this twisted thread, just yet.

Have a good day.

[edyzmedieval]

Time is a non-quantifiable item and it cannot be considered a true physical entity, like mass.

Time is non-definable.

[PBI]

In what way is time non-quantifiable? There are plenty of ways of measuring it objectively and we can define universal standard units for it. What other way of deciding whether something is physical or not is there other than whether we can measure it or not?

As for mass, it is not anywhere near as straightforward a concept as you might think. It seems like an intuitive concept because we all grow up with the notion that objects are heavy, but when you start to think about what it means and where it comes from it's not at all obvious. In fact in quantum field theories it is generally much more sensible to construct a theory where all the particles appear massless. We have to sneak the mass of the particles in "through the back door" via some contorted means such as the Higgs mechanism (hence why the search for the Higgs boson is so important). Time, meanwhile, is a relatively straightforward and rigidly defined concept.

[Beirut]

Time is a non-quantifiable item and it cannot be considered a true physical entity, like mass.

Time is non-definable.

I utterly disagree.

Stephen Hawking defines time as an essential part of fixing an exact location in space. How can something undefinable be used as a precise tool of definition?

[Caius]

Time is a non-quantifiable item and it cannot be considered a true physical entity, like mass.

Time is non-definable.

If you can tell the hour, then you can define it.

At least for me.

[cmacq]

I'm sorry, but if that logic were used, wouldn't human language also then become a tangible element of the mass-energy equivalence?

[PBI]

How can you "measure" language? It is an inherently subjective concept.

You can measure time however. If I measure the half-life of a given substance on opposite sides of the world I will get the same result (assuming I didn't **** up the experiment).

Why is measuring the time with a clock somehow more vague or subjective than measuring a length with a ruler?

[CBR]

Time is a fundamental unit. GPS would not work unless time could be measured and the effects of Relativity taken into account.


CBR

[cmacq]

How can you "measure" language? It is an inherently subjective concept.

You can measure time however. If I measure the half-life of a given substance on opposite sides of the world I will get the same result (assuming I didn't **** up the experiment).

Why is measuring the time with a clock somehow more vague or subjective than measuring a length with a ruler?

Or measuring the perceived phonetic value of a syllable and representing it as a symbol?
Everything that humans perceive are inherently subjective, including measuring and representing the perception of time with symbols?

[cmacq]

Time is a fundamental unit. GPS would not work unless time could be measured and the effects of Relativity taken into account.


CBR

Actually, your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't have batteries.

Nice try...
I think you may have meant, establishing a relative geographic point of reference, not GPS?

This of course is determined not by time as a physical entity, rather it is established through the repeated triangulation of distance using light from a given point to a reflector and back again. The internal atomic clock doesn't measure time as a physical entity, rather it measures the distance from point A to B, C, D, E, and F; based on a property of light, as understood within this context. One may note that with the example provided, time or the temporal duration, is the abstract used as a ruler and not the property of the entity, actually being measured. This particular example may also bring into sharp relief that, as a construct of the human mind, time has by far more semblance than substance.

best to all
CmacQ

[Beirut]

Or measuring the perceived phonetic value of a syllable and representing it as a symbol?

You pull that off and I'll ask Tosa to award you an Org. Nobel Prize.

Everything that humans perceive are inherently subjective, including measuring and representing the perception of time with symbols?

I think that reasoning can only fly if you're being sucked into an existential vacuum.

[cmacq]

Or measuring the perceived phonetic value of a syllable and representing it as a symbol?

Originally Posted by Beirut
You pull that off and I'll ask Tosa to award you an Org. Nobel Prize.

From wiki: Language
Properties of language
A set of agreed-upon symbols is only one feature of written language; all languages must define the structural relationships between these symbols in a system of grammar. Rules of grammar are what distinguish language from other forms of communication. They allow a finite set of symbols to be manipulated to create a potentially infinite number of grammatical utterances.

Another property of language is that the symbols used are arbitrary. Any concept or grammatical rule can be mapped onto a symbol. Most languages make use of sound, but the combinations of sounds used do not have any inherent meaning - they are merely an agreed-upon convention to represent a certain thing by users of that language. For instance, there is nothing about the Spanish word nada itself that forces Spanish speakers to use it to mean "nothing". Another set of sounds - for example, English nothing - could equally be used to represent the same concept. Nevertheless, all Spanish speakers have acquired or learned that meaning for that sound pattern. But for Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian/Kosovan or Bosnian speakers, nada means "hope".

However, even though in principle the symbols are arbitrary, this does not mean that a language cannot have symbols that are iconic of what they stand for. Words such as "meow" sound similar to what they represent (see Onomatopoeia), but they do not necessarily have to do so in order to be understood. Many languages use different onomatopoeias as the agreed convention to represent the sounds a cat makes.

[Beirut]

Ah, very good. I thought you were off on some grammar = mass trip.

My apologies.

[Caius]

I'm sorry, but if that logic were used, wouldn't human language also then become a tangible element of the mass-energy equivalence?

I think that languaje can't be bring to this discussion, as we are discussing the Big Bang, and not the apparition of humans, which is related, but that would be going out of topic.

[CBR]

Actually, your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't have batteries.

Nice try...
I think you may have meant, establishing a relative geographic point of reference, not GPS?

No I meant exactly what i said. GPS would not work without batteries, solar cells, thrusters, gyroscopes, radio etc etc. We could put all that into a box and call it GPS but it would not provide us with a position unless we had a way of measuring time.

"something that exists as a perception, only in the human mind" and yet we have a definition of a Second and it is an SI unit.


CBR

[cmacq]

I think that language can't be brought to this discussion, as we are discussing the Big Bang, and not the apparition of humans, which is related, but that would be going out of topic.

Right you are, was using language as an example, bad me.

No I meant exactly what I said. Time is a fundamental unit. GPS would not work unless time could be measured and the effects of Relativity taken into account.

Again, a bit off topic, but somewhat related, no???

So as a pettifore, I'm sure I didn't make myself well understood, yet the Global Positioning System works through the repeated triangulation of distance using messages from a number of space based GPS satellites and a set of ground based control stations; to a hand held receiver component. The ground based control stations are important as they establish the Universal Time Coordinated (UTC), the satellites position, and Nav data.

The process
Initially, a range, or the approximate measurement of the distance between a given satellite and a hand held receiver(GPS) is calculated. This is based on the speed of the Nav messages sent from the GPS satellites, as established by the UTC offset by the local time of the GPS. Next, an ephemeris from the Nav message is downloaded to calculate the satellite's precise position, which is established by the various ground based control stations.

After the ranges of as few as four satellites has been established, the receiver calculates a relative point of reference by proportionally estimating an intersection of the ranges against the known Nav data and the difference between UTC and the time indicated by the GPS. With each set of four satellites, the distance is triangulated to provide a geometric vector, based on the relative orbital positions of these satellites and the sundry factors listed above.

Using the weighted average of the satellite positions and the temporal offsets, the GPS receiver establishes which data sets are used and how to calculate the estimated position. Finally, as the GPS establishes a finished set of calculations, it expresses this estimated geographic position as a set of coordinates; either latitude/longitude, UTM, or a system specific to a given nation.

Again, this method of establishing a geographic point of reference, doesn't measure time as a physical entity, rather it measures the distance, based on a property of message (light speed), as understood within a given context. A subtly indeed, but the distance between points is established, by measuring the temporal interval of light traveling between said points. I think I may have left out a few things, here and there, so correct me, please.



Best to all
CmacQ

[CBR]

edyzmedieval said "Time is a non-quantifiable item" and "Time is non-definable" and you said time "exists as a perception, only in the human mind"

So something that cant be quantified nor defined. Thats hardly how time is seen in physics is it? The reason I mentioned GPS was simply because it even has to take Relativity into account for it to work.

Although I thought it was quite amazing when something, that cannot be defined, have to calculated with such precision, I guess that was not a good example. So I'll just sit back and wait for the other theories that are better than the Big Bang Theory.


CBR

[Papewaio]

e = mc^2

Energy = mass x velocity of light x velocity of light.

velocity = distance / time

Energy = mass x distance x distance / (time x time)

Mass =( Energy x time x time ) / (distance x distance)

Mass, Energy, Space and Time are all parts of the same coin.

[Samurai Waki]

Time is certainly quantifiable. I think what Edyz may have been getting at, is that time exists in different dimensions, and although it can be accurately measured, the perceived notion of time is rather unending.

E.G. I can measure the time it would take me to get to the Grocery Store and back home, as it is valid.

We can measure the time that our Solar System has been in existence

We Can Measure the time that our Galaxy has been in existence

But we cannot measure the time that our universe has been in existence, as theoretically speaking, We don't have an exact pin-point on when the creation of our universe even began, and we're not 100% sure of how it began. However, there was a beginning and therefore time exists albeit on shaky non-linear pattern with neither a measureable beginning nor an end.

[Papewaio]

Same applies to space... where is the 0,0,0 point?

[PBI]

Agreed, the arguments being put forward to suggest time is a subjective concept seem to me to apply equally well to space, mass, electric charge and indeed any physical observable you care to mention.

The implication seems to be that we should reject the notion of objective reality entirely, in which case it becomes rather pointless trying to do science at all, or any kind of rational enquiry about our universe for that matter.

[Moros]

Same applies to space... where is the 0,0,0 point?

Indeed. Space is relative too, not just time.

[cmacq]

Time is certainly quantifiable. I think what Edyz may have been getting at, is that time exists in different dimensions, and although it can be accurately measured, the perceived notion of time is rather unending.

E.G. I can measure the time it would take me to get to the Grocery Store and back home, as it is valid.

Here, you are using the perception of distance and velocity to calculate the time needed to travel (mass and energy) from point A=home(mass) to B=grocery(mass) to A=home(mass). As far as time as a dimension, yes time is indeed a dimension, of measurement similar to distance, velocity, and weight. And, all of this seems to go straight to the heart of the current discussion.

As far as I understand, in physics the meaning of the term 'dimension' relates to the nature of 'a measurable quantity' of either mass or energy. The term doesn't imply that these dimensions per se, are physical entities. Herein, another word for 'dimension' is 'fundamental unit,' which is a unit for describing physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated, as they relate to mass or energy. In the language of measurement, quantities are quantifiable perceptions of time, distance, velocity, momentum, and weight; related only to the application or interaction of mass and energy and described as units of measure. For example, the perception of time and distance has no meaning unless it relates to either mass or energy, as this pretains to a state of matter, which can be called a physical entity. I hope this may help, as I did leave a few things out because I don't want to cloud this issue with more semantics. Of course, I am most likely very wrong.

We can measure the time that our Solar System has been in existence. We Can Measure the time that our Galaxy has been in existence
But we cannot measure the time that our universe has been in existence, as theoretically speaking, We don't have an exact pin-point on when the creation of our universe even began, and we're not 100% sure of how it began. However, there was a beginning and therefore time exists albeit on shaky non-linear pattern with neither a measureable beginning nor an end.

As we have but very small parts of a huge puzzle, what does it all mean, that is the question???

best to all
CmacQ

[Caius]

Guys, one question:

if there are special machines (those REALLY exist, saw it in a magazine) that can make the same effect as the Big Bang, why doesn't is a new Universe or something?

[Viking]

Guys, one question:

if there are special machines (those REALLY exist, saw it in a magazine) that can make the same effect as the Big Bang, why doesn't is a new Universe or something?

I assume you are talking about LHC. And if I get your question correctly, it'll only simulate the big bang in the sense of the engergy levels that the particles will get. I.e the particles will be smashed to pieces and create a 'particle soup' similar to what existed shortly after big bang when the temperatures were so high that atoms couldn't exist (in the same sense that liquid water doesn't exist with a temperature at, say, 110 degrees C at sea level; the molecules have too much kinetic energy to stick tight enough together to form a liquid).

[cmacq]

So then, what about black holes?

[Ironside]

So then, what about black holes?

The "end of the world":ers forget to mention that the same theories that predict that the LHC will create black holes, also predict that it will occur black holes of the same size quite often in the atmosphere due to cosmic radiation collisions.

I'll let you predict odds of the LHC spelling the end of the world due to that.