View Full Version : Sci Da big bang
Do you believe it?
gotta get this science forum rolling somehow
:7detective:
Put it like this.
There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.
On a more scientific level...no.
I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.
Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?
Ironside
05-14-2008, 18:17
Going from the scientiffic formulas, you can pretty much say that the Big Bang explains what we see in the universe most correctly, because something must explain the Hubble law (increased red-shift with increased distance) and things like the microwave radiation.
That doesn't mean that it needs to feel like it makes sence for our understanding, partically before you've gotten everything on a satifying level of understanding, because some things really doesn't, particulary in quantum physics (and that's the level the Big Bang is on). Like electrons wave-interacting with themself. :inquisitive:
I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.That is true but we are talking about an explosion that created the intricate and complicated world we live in. Look at how the earth sits and rotates. And degree fast or slightly tipped off balance and we're all dead. Even the slightest bump or whatever and we're kaput.
Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?
We'll I believe in the idea of a greater being (God), who created the universe and also us. And science is a way of explaining things or trying to find out how the world we live in works. Take for instance the human body (or you). Look at how complicated and interconnected everything is. It's hard to believe that we came from fish or whatever. Yea there is some evolutionary process in the human body, as with all animals, that allow them to adapt to new surroundings. But nothing from molecules, to fish, to monkeys, to us. I believe that God created the universe, but made it so that it could function on it's own without Him having to meddle with it all the time, and a good example is that of the human race and how it has grown, expanded, and adapted with the changing earth.
Hope that was kinda clear.
O and so what do you think?
Personally I cannot comprehend God, it is not within my understanding of the universe and so it logically appears to me that there is no God. I agree with the Big Bang due to things such as Red Shift, mentioned by Ironside, but the intricacy of it all does make me wonder sometimes. I suppose you could say I'm an agnostic that leans towards atheism.
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-14-2008, 19:32
I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.
Thank you, normal service is now resumed.
Craterus
05-14-2008, 19:33
Put it like this.
There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.
On a more scientific level...no.
What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?
Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?
Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).
I hope this post made sense. ~:)
Ironside
05-14-2008, 19:37
The thing to remember with Big Bang and science is that we're still not close (relativly) to get an explaination on what happened at time 0. And while there's certainly room for a god running Sim Universe, we're not at the point we can say what the odds is. To get closer you'll need to quantify gravity and that's what the theory of everything is about.
Or to upt it differently we're are not in the state where we can determine if the Big Bang makes as much sence as Decker's explosion or as lighting a lightbulb.
What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?I'm just putting in the way that the Big Bang has been described.
Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex? I'm no scientist or anything, but I have seen tv shows, read articles, and seen things that make me realize that things, no matter how small, all intertwine. Just look at the human body.
Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again). It's an analogy. A complex book out of simple things. Look at how the universe works or our world for that matter. It's just a simple analogy that's all.
I hope this post made sense. ~:)
I get it a lil... hope I answered well enough for ya :2thumbsup:
I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.
Thank you, normal service is now resumed.
Well, I'll try and keep it hopefully, in the periphery.
Hey… didn’t see this until today.
Firstly I have seriously doubts about the Big Bang theory. I am not saying I have the answer to the origin of our universe either. As some of you might remember I had a discussion going on this very subject in the ‘Does God Exist’ thread.
I was merely playing an apologist there as I find religion interesting.
In truth I am an agnostic and that means I should have all such question on a pending status.
Current Science is moving away from the perfect singularity that expanded aka. Big Bang.
Other explanation caters for the red shift and the other phenomena believed to have originated in such an event. I call it an event. By doing so we are all back in the cause event, cause event and first cause, first event routine. We will run into problems. If we need an uncaused reality why can’t that be the universe itself? It was never created; it has always been in one form or another or at least a part of the multiverse.
If we take God away from the equation, we should be very open for extra terrestrial life.
Having downloaded the World Wide Telescope (Thanks Papewaio) and read about the telescopes I realized just how probable that events such as transpired here on Tellus could very well have happened in the countless other galaxies around us.
No one really knows how big our universe is, but we like to define its size. And we do so by saying – this is as far as we can see and that is what we define as the edge of our universe.
Currently that is 78 billion light-years. Yes it is defined by the Hubble telescope.
In 1995 Hubble stared 10 days on an empty spot on our night sky. What came out of that picture was an image of at least 3000 galaxies. The image is called Hubble Deep field.
In 2003 Hubble tried it again on a different patch of seemingly empty space; this time with different filters. It stared on the spot for 11 days revealing an image 78 billion light-years away (take the length with a grain of salt as claims vary). This image contained at least 10 000 galaxies.
If we consider that our galaxy the milky way to have at least 500 000 000 000 solar systems with potential planets like our solar system, it will dawn on you the staggering numbers that lies around us on every pixel of dark space we can see on the night sky. That everything was contained in a perfect singularity at plank time is in my ears sure lunacy.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/hubbledeep.jpg
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/v_ultra-deep_field_02.jpg
Do you believe it?
gotta get this science forum rolling somehow
:7detective:
Epic start: opening the science forum with beliefs? :beam:
Not being a cosmologist, I'll not throw in my two cents. However, as observations goes on, the Big Bang theory just gets stronger and stronger; to my knowledge, reading astronomical journals.
Put it like this.
There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.
On a more scientific level...no.
That is not a valid analogy. Some time after the big bang, matter started to codensate, creating helium and hydrogen, which in turn condensated into giantic gas clouds. These gas clouds contiuned to grow in mass until the pressure got so high in the center of mass that fusion started, and a star had been born. Some of these stars died as supernovas, and in the later stages of a supernova process, the star creates elements heavier than oxygen through fusion; elements that the everything around us are made out of.
Around newer generations of stars, the dust cloud now contains heavier elements and not just hydrogen and helium. In these dust rings, matter start to accrete producing proto planets, which in turn accrete to create planets. Provided that the correct elements are present, and that the surface conditions on these planets are favourable, life will arise.
And there we are. The text above illustrates that nothing was random; when you drop a ball, it will fall to ground because there is gravity. If you unleash a big bang given the laws of this universe, you'll end up with planets and life.
Well, this is the science forum, so I don't understand what God is doing here :shrug:
I for one, must admit that I don't know too much about this Big Bang theory.
What made scientists come to this conclusion?
Is the universe, according to scientists, still expanding after the big bang?
Which tools/methods do scientists use to measure this?
Will the universe one day, start getting smaller again? I mean, will it implode, only to explode (a new big bang) once again? Is it possible that there is a gigantic perpetuum mobile of imploding/exploding (Big Bang) of the universe?
According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?
I'm intrigued by black holes, but I must admit that I don't know very much about them.
I'm really interested in all this, but never got around actually studying this, so please, if there's someone who knows alot of astrology/astronomy/physics/whichevers scientific branch studies this subject, enlighten me.
And I beg thee, keep religion out of it. We have the backroom for that :bow:
According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?
Not really qualified to answer; but I'll give it a go.
Since the universe is expanding, it should be safe to assume that it must have something to expand into; and what it expand into is nothingness. No matter, no energy, no time. That means that if you magically somehow should pop up outside the universe, and looked in the direction of which the universe expands from, you'd not see anything since no light has reached your position yet; and when it does, the universe itself has expanded to your position also. I wonder if not the first light that reached you would be the flash from the BB itself.
Samurai Waki
05-15-2008, 09:19
I think the big bang is by far a biased scientific approach to the creation of the universe, as the complexities of which cannot be even be fathomed by any mortal human being today. I'm definitely with Sigurd on this one, there is no such thing as "the end" there was never a such thing as the creation, as universes must have been there before even our concept of the universe, even if the big bang were true, were there other "big bangs" before that? Thats not even brining god into question on this one. Because there is no way it can be tested, the Big Bang will also be a theory, and most scientists regard it as that, it just is, because thats the best we've got, since it makes some sense compared to other testable methods. I'm just content living here on poor ol' earth, plying my way through life, raising kids, and hoping that there are indeed powers that be, that will protect us. I'm not just enlightened enough to look into the skies and see the great complexity that lies in front of me.
Is this expansion slowing down and will it eventually stop or will it continue at the same pace for eternity/until the borders of this nothingness have been reached? Has this been measured? What methods did they use?
IIRC there are two main pieces of evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory:
* Galactic red shift of galaxies
* Cosmic microwave background
The red shift is the observation that the light observed from distant galaxies is shifted towards the red (low energy) end of the spectrum. This effect is analogous to the Doppler shift observed with sound, e.g. if a car is driving away from you, the sound it makes is at a lower pitch than if it is driving towards you. The fact that the light is red-shifted is evidence that the galaxies are moving away from us at great speed. Specifically, the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. The implication of this observation is that the galaxies are all moving outwards from some central point.
The cosmic microwave background refers to the observation that we observe a roughly constant level of microwave radiation everwhere in space; this observation is consistent with the prediction of residual radiation from the Big Bang; the amount by which this radiation has been red-shifted is the main piece of evidence used to estimate the age of the universe in the Big Bang theory (thought to be roughly 14 billion years).
As for whether the universe will continue to increase, I am no expert but I think this is not known for certain. The two important factors are the mass of the universe and its rate of expansion; for a heavy universe, the force of gravity will eventually overcome the expansion and it will collapse; for a light universe, it will continue expanding forever.
The rate of expansion is easy enough to measure, since it is related to the same red-shift observations I mentioned earlier. The hard bit is estimating the mass of the universe, especially since the bulk of the mass seems to be made up of so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy", which cannot be observed directly but whose presence must be inferred from the behaviour of nearby galaxies.
I admit I am not a cosmologist but I must say I was not aware of any known theory which explains these observations better than the Big Bang hypothesis. If anyone can suggest or link to one I would be interested to read it.
I am a little confused by those suggesting that the theory cannot be tested; the Big Bang theory makes predictions about observable quantities, which we can then look for. If we find them (e.g. the CMB) it is evidence in favour of the theory, if we do not, it disproves the theory. What other method of testing is there?
Is this expansion slowing down and will it eventually stop or will it continue at the same pace for eternity/until the borders of this nothingness have been reached? Has this been measured? What methods did they use? This is the thing Andres... depending on where you measure the speed might vary.
It is called an expansion, but many have the wrong idea about what this expansion is all about. Some have used the analogy of the ant on a balloon which is inflating. The ant does not perceive the motion. Every object it has contact with on this balloon is stationary. They don't move. Yet every day it takes longer to travel to X even though X claims he never moved.
Teachers are teaching wrong things if they say that the Galaxies move trough space at such and such speed. It is the universe surrounding it which expands thus “creating” more space between the stationary objects. This expansion has relative speeds as I mentioned. The formula used to determine the speed other galaxies moves away from us is v = Hd where v is the recession velocity and d is the distance from us. H is the Hubble constant.
A galaxy depending on the distance from us moves say: 1000 m/s and another double the distance away moves away at a speed of 2000 m/s. Another factor called the Hubble distance says that stellar bodies beyond the distance of 14 billion light years move away from us at speeds above that of the speed of light.
The way I understand it, it is space itself that is expanding and not the stellar bodies flying away from us in space. And Viking’s empty space outside the universe is his own thoughts. The expansion theory makes it clear it is not so.
And Viking’s empty space outside the universe is his own thoughts. The expansion theory makes it clear it is not so.
I didn't say that there is any space outside the universe; I stated that there is nothing; as a response to if the universe has an end. Nothing as in no time, no matter, no energy = nothing, it doesn't exist; not as in vacuum, which is something.
The way I understand it, it is space itself that is expanding and not the stellar bodies flying away from us in space.
Yes, sorry, this is what I meant. I should have said that galaxies appear to be moving away at great speed.
This is the thing Andres... depending on where you measure the speed might vary.
It is called an expansion, but many have the wrong idea about what this expansion is all about. Some have used the analogy of the ant on a balloon which is inflating. The ant does not perceive the motion. Every object it has contact with on this balloon is stationary. They don't move. Yet every day it takes longer to travel to X even though X claims he never moved.
At the same time, galaxies do move relative to each other. E.g. the Milky Way might collide with the Andromeda galaxy in three billion years; and at the same time the Milky Way is moving towards the Great Attractor at a great speed.
CountArach
05-15-2008, 13:37
I don't know enough, and never will, to make a truly informed opinoin; however I am willing to go along with the vast majority of physicists who do believe that the Universe was created in such a way.
So yes, absolutely I believe in it.
Ironside
05-15-2008, 18:06
Well, this is the science forum, so I don't understand what God is doing here :shrug:
I for one, must admit that I don't know too much about this Big Bang theory.
What made scientists come to this conclusion?
Is the universe, according to scientists, still expanding after the big bang?
Which tools/methods do scientists use to measure this?
Sigurd is covering the red-shift pretty well and this explains most of your questions. In principle the lightwaves themself streches out with expanding space.
The biggest proof of Big-Bang instead of an evergrowing universe is the backround radiation. Basically when the universe was created it was very hot and then after cooling down to about 3000Kelvin, the universe stopped being a plasma (everything is ionized) and became transparent, creating the first light that could travel some distance. With time the wavelength has been stretched out into the form we see today on about 3K (the universe has then becamed about 1000 larger since then).
A plasma isn't tranparent because the photons will be immidiatly absorbed and then released again in a plasma, this is why the sun looks massive for example.
Will the universe one day, start getting smaller again? I mean, will it implode, only to explode (a new big bang) once again? Is it possible that there is a gigantic perpetuum mobile of imploding/exploding (Big Bang) of the universe?
As for the momment it seems that the universe is expanding faster and faster (this is observed with fairly high certaincy), driven by the dark energy (that's basically "if we put a number into this equation, then the equation will follow what we see"), that scientists have no idea what it is. Simply put as it is now it basically says that the more vacuum that's created the more energy that will push all objects away from eachother will exist.
As you can guess don't be surprised if that field ends up completly rewritten within a few decades.
According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?
Short answer: None got any idea.
Longer answer: The Universe is the boundry of our physical laws and also time as we percive it so it's pretty hard to say what's outside, or if outside actually can exist.
I'm intrigued by black holes, but I must admit that I don't know very much about them.
Short note, it's an area in space where the gravity is so strong that things needs to travel faster than light to escape the gravity (at this point matter as we know it is destroyed and what is then left is unknown). It can be of any size, but quantum mechanics tells us that the very small ones will vaporize very quckly by the Hawking radiation.
Again, what does this dubious big bang thiny and god have in common, other than Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Eduard Lemaitre?
About the size of the universe. I believe could say this:
imagine that the whole universe only consisted out of you (and that you for one reason simply would be able to survive), then the size of the universe would exactly be your bodies size. Let's say you walk (I don't know how you did it but you walked) a bit. The universe still remains as big, it doesn't grow, as you had nothing to move away from. You could say the universe moved with you. However if the universe only consisted out of us two. And you would walk away from me, the universe did expand, cause you had something to move away from. Because your position changed relatively from something else.
However if we wouldn't be able to see each other, and have nothing to relatively orientate us on. Now If I'd walk away from you, did you move? You could say you moved further from the middle of the universe. And I wouldn't even have noticed I moved. Nor did you for that matter.
Now you see it easily gets complicated. even with just the two of us. (And none of us is even female!). Now consider the fact that our universe contains an uncountable amount of 'objects', that space, nor time is linear and that everything is relative. Things become complicated, and it's hard to tell what is moving, what is not. How fast is this moving? How big is the universe?
So then...
is that the natural, moral, or metaphysical aspect of quantum mechanics?
Papewaio
05-18-2008, 11:53
Actually as theories go the Big Bang (its sensationalist name after the fact) is fairly simple compared with say Gravity (Special Relativity) and Schrodingers equation (oh the joys of finding the 0 points on a tripal integral of sodium in a magnetic field... I still can remember the agony if not the how).
Anyhow the thing is to this theory is that not only was energy and matter created so was time. Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter... there is no time before the universe, it is a property of this universe.
Some of the other things that the 'Big Bang' Theory help us determine is the amount of neutrons to protons (decay rates), why there is so much hydrogen vs other elements.
And combine the 'Big Bang' Theory with what we know about star formation (main sequence stars and others particularly the giants) and creation of elements beyond carbon and then beyond iron it gives us information to the ratios of other elements. These then can tell us that our star is a third generation star (at least) because of elements with a proton number more then iron.
Well then,
if time is indeed a physical entity...
...what are time's physical attributes?
what's the physical attributes of space?
You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.
Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?
Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.
what's the physical attributes of space?
You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.
Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?
Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.
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.
One of my dull quotes: "a mind too free, is bound to wander."
Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?
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.
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
05-19-2008, 10:27
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.
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
05-21-2008, 18:29
Time is a non-quantifiable item and it cannot be considered a true physical entity, like mass.
Time is non-definable.
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.
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?
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.
I'm sorry, but if that logic were used, wouldn't human language also then become a tangible element of the mass-energy equivalence?
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?
Time is a fundamental unit. GPS would not work unless time could be measured and the effects of Relativity taken into account.
CBR
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?
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
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.
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.
Ah, very good. I thought you were off on some grammar = mass trip. :beatnik2:
My apologies.
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.
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
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
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
05-23-2008, 07:19
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
05-23-2008, 10:45
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
05-23-2008, 15:10
Same applies to space... where is the 0,0,0 point?
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.
Same applies to space... where is the 0,0,0 point?
Indeed. Space is relative too, not just time.
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
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?
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).
So then, what about black holes?
Ironside
05-24-2008, 18:51
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. :book:
Toss me a bone here people...
Right than, what may the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), black holes, type Ia supernovas, and the Planck Time element of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) all have in common? This is one of the many reasons why I can't buy into the overall BBT. I won't even start with the PC bull that as a giant social cockroach has eaten away the intent of the copernican principle.
Ironside
05-25-2008, 10:48
Toss me a bone here people...
Right than, what may the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), black holes, type Ia supernovas, and the Planck Time element of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) all have in common? This is one of the many reasons why I can't buy into the overall BBT. I won't even start with the PC bull that as a giant social cockroach has eaten away the intent of the copernican principle.
You tell me. I'm not sure how you link Ia supernovas and black holes together with the BBT.
The LHC will try to get high enough energy to be compareable with the Plank Time, that is when all the fundamental forces ( gravity, electromagnetism strong and weak interaction forces) couldn't be differented from eachother. Or to be more exact, after the Plank Time in the BBT was when you could separate gravity from the rest.
Black holes are simply gravity wells that light cannot escape from, although mass as we know it cannot exist inside it either.
Ia supernova is simply a supernova that occurs when a white dwarf has gathered enough mass from its neighbour in a binary system, this will happen at a speciffic mass. This makes them really good to meassure distances.
I'm not sure were you're going with the copernican principle, are you claiming that Earth is special in it's place of the universe or?
I can go into things that a theory about the universe needs to explain, but I start with asking you if you consider universe to be eternal or not? Gives me different focus points.
I'm not sure were you're going with the copernican principle, are you claiming that Earth is special in it's place of the universe or?
No I'm not saying that the Earth is a special place to view the universe, as actually I think it to be an extremely poor place to view the universe. But recently the copernican principle has been subverted to mean that the Earth is as good as any other place to view the universe. It simply is not. As an example, its a bit akin to studing the marketing of fine foods in New York City in AD 2005, from the inside of a rice cake, thats being baked in a stone oven in 14th century BC western China. The copernican principle was not intented to mean that there are not far better places to view the universe than Earth.
For the other, come on, toss me a bone here, they all seem to have something in common.
best to all
CmacQ
Ironside
05-26-2008, 09:10
No I'm not saying that the Earth is a special place to view the universe, as actually I think it to be an extremely poor place to view the universe. But recently the copernican principle has been subverted to mean that the Earth is as good as any other place to view the universe. It simply is not. As an example, its a bit akin to studing the marketing of fine foods in New York City in AD 2005, from the inside of a rice cake, thats being baked in a stone oven in 14th century BC western China. The copernican principle was not intented to mean that there are not far better places to view the universe than Earth.
As we are pretty much stuck inside the universe the only true downside Earth have as a single point observation place is that the milky way is in the way. Having multiple observation points would help of course, but that's a bit hard to fix.
For the other, come on, toss me a bone here, they all seem to have something in common.
best to all
CmacQ
They are theories? :thinking2:
As we are pretty much stuck inside the universe the only true downside Earth have as a single point observation place is that the milky way is in the way.
So, I wonder what effect might the milky way have on very distant incoming light and other sundrys?
They are theories? :thinking2:
There are always theories. What might they be? They all have a small little something in common.
Mediolanicus
05-26-2008, 20:07
Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?
George Smoot and his team discovered a background radiation of 3Kelvin in the universe. These are the so-called "wrinkels in time", which are the left overs of the massive warmth radiation that was transmitted in the in the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Smoot won the Nobleprize in Physics for this discovery.
For a good and very accessible book I must refer to that "Wrinkels in Time", written by George Smoot and Keay Davidson. It only requires a very basic knowlegde to understand and gives a good overview of all the theories about the universe, as well as telling the story of the search and finding of this back ground radiation.
Smoot won the Nobleprize in Physics for this discovery.
No reflection, to be sure yet...
Much cheapened in more recent times, as weren't Albert Gore II and Yasser Arafat provided with this once vaulted prize? If a person spends 20 years of their life looking for something very far away where no one else can go, isn't it just great they find it near the end? Sorry, can't address this right now, i've a few things to take care of. Maybe, there is another that might be more able at this time?
best to all
C macQ
Mediolanicus
05-27-2008, 07:28
The fact that he got a noble prize was not an argument, it was merely some information about the scientist.
Read the book, it give a good overview of all the theories about the universe (big bang and steady state being the most popular).
I agree that sometimes you only "find" what you search. But the fact is that the background radiation is there.
Ironside
05-27-2008, 10:53
No reflection, to be sure yet...
Much cheapened in more recent times, as weren't Albert Gore II and Yasser Arafat provided with this once vaulted prize? If a person spends 20 years of their life looking for something very far away where no one else can go, isn't it just great they find it near the end? Sorry, can't address this right now, i've a few things to take care of. Maybe, there is another that might be more able at this time?
best to all
C macQ
No ,they did not get the Nobel price in Physics, those 2 did get the Peace price, the only Nobel price that isn't a scientific one. :logic:
And the funny thing with cosmic radiation is that it was found by mistake by some other guys, years after it was predicted to exist by the Big Bang theory.
So, I wonder what effect might the milky way have on very distant incoming light and other sundrys?
The milky way disturbs around 30-40% of the visual field, but that's very hard to avoid as you would otherwise need an observation point far outside a galaxy.
About distant light also being very old, it's pretty hard to avoid for a single point observer. The gravity pull isn't that great in the light coming from the sides and is the same on all light coming from that part of space.
There are always theories. What might they be? They all have a small little something in common.
Gravity? Astrophysics?
Unless you're going to give some more meat on this I'm gonna give this up, for all I know your connection could be so bizzare that I would laugh for a week if I heard it.
Oh, should I focus on things that indicates a non-eternal, non-steady state universe or should I focus on things indicating that universe was born through a Big Bang?
Mediolanicus
05-27-2008, 12:08
Oh, should I focus on things that indicates a non-eternal, non-steady state universe or should I focus on things indicating that universe was born through a Big Bang?
The former. So much more interesting and so much "closer" to us. The big bang (which was actually very small at the beginning and quite soundless) is something far away in time, which we are trying to reconstruct with what we now about the universe today.
Which brings us to the theory of a non-eternal, non-steady universe.
And I think that theory pretty much proves the big bang too.
Please elaborate on the subject. You've got me interested. I know more than the average person of the subject (I learned it from a boo-que), but I always want to learn more.
Still off, but you may have been moving in the right direction, so I'll help a bit. In the most simple terms, think of the setting of a very little Bang and ask how is this different from that of the Big Bang. Then ask what was there before the Big Bang? Now ask if there was one Big Bang, could there have been others? What are the reasons pro and con considering morphology, distortion, relativity, prospective, and balance out all the nearby moving parts and a few of the variables. And, of course disregard all of the unknowns, as I'm sure these spare parts are of no importance, whatsoever.
Not to draw too fine a point about debate, but my address in a general sense, to the invocation of the Nobel, was designed to demonstrate its irreverence to the current discussion. Advancing this tact further, only serves to exacerbate this point.
Yes Ironside gravity, but please elaborate.
sorry no time right now to be less than cryptic
cheers
CmacQ
I must say, cmacq, I hope you can find some time at some point to set out clearly and explicitly your objections to the Big Bang, and to lay out your alternative theory which does a better job, together with your reasoning for it. I'm afraid I must say that I am a little stumped by how your "cryptic" questions are relevant.
Little Big Bangs? Would be very interesting to study one, but as no one knows a way of making one it doesn't seem like a very useful thing to speculate about (the LHC, contrary to popular belief, certainly does nothing of the sort).
Other Big Bangs, and possible other universes besides this one? Again an interesting hypothesis, but since we are restricted to observing in this universe, an ultimately untestable one. The same is true for discussion of what happened before the Big Bang.
I'm afraid that the Big Bang, flawed as you claim it is, is still the best (or at least, "least worst") theory that has thus far been suggested in this thread. Until you can suggest a better one the current theory stands regardless of its flaws.
Mediolanicus
05-28-2008, 18:30
Take the situation before the big bang :
We can't imagine that, but there must have been something. Although that something might qualify to us as nothing. This nothing doesn't obey any of the laws of nature we know and doesn't have any of the dimensions we know. There is no distance, no volume, no time.
Big Bang :
Something must have happened somewhere in this nothing, which made it, or part of it, into our universe. Or maybe our universe just developed inside this nothing. - insert theory that explains an expanding universe with a beginning -
Outside our universe :
Our universe is not endless, so there must still be "nothing" outside of it.
Our universe is, as far as we can calculate, limitless. Being all turned into itself (I can't explain this properly, I'm not an astrophysicist and not a native English speaker, but it has something to do with relativity).
Therefore we can't leave our universe. Therefore light can't leave the universe either and we can't see what's outside the universe.
Little big bangs :
There are many theories about parallel universes and other universes next to us. They all have one thing in common. We shall never even be able to form a hypothesis about it that can be supported by what we can know.
Birth - Grow - Shrink - Crush :
Also a popular theory is the theory that we are part of something recurrent.
But that would require that our universe implodes in the future. And considering with what we now know, that seems unlikely.
Although science doesn't know that much about this all.
If they calculate the stability of the universe, taking in account all the visible mass and the volume of the universe they can see, the solution tells us that the universe imploded seconds after it started to exist.
Hence the whole debate about "dark matter", which would be 99% of the whole mass in our universe.
These are just a few thoughts, any comments or corrections?
Sorry if there are any (language)mistakes, as I said, I'm not a native English speaker.
Anyway cmacq, I think the discussion you want, however interesting, is rather something for philosophers than for scientists.
Anyway cmacq, I think the discussion you want, however interesting, is rather something for philosophers than for scientists.
Pardon, are you saying that the creation of something, in the form of an isolated flat bubble, out of nothing is called science?
Mediolanicus
05-29-2008, 08:18
Anything that we can see, can be scientifically examined. The universe can be seen, so it can be scientifically examined. Your possible other big bangs can't be seen, and thus can't be scientifically examined.
That's what I mean.
I'm not saying the big bang is "the truth" either, but the consequences of "a beginning" are seen. And the big bang theory is just the name of most likely cause for these consequences.
And yes, this is science. The possible first minute of the big bang has been calculated using all the information they've got.
It's not the UC Berkeley's Chess And Science Club on weed that makes those theories.
What actually are you trying to say?
That we can't know?
True.
But we can't know that Ceasar conquered Gaul too, we can only presume, because he wrote a book and other people wrote books about him.
That the universe was created on 23th October, 4004BC at 9 o'clock in the morning? (date by Bishop James Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot)
Anyway, that God (any God) created it?
You'd have to be God to know if you exist in the first place...
And what is your alternative theory? Please tell us. As you said "we are moving in the right direction." What is this "right direction"?
But don't just say things like "pfff, Nobel price... If Al Gore wins one, it's worth nought" and "pfff, you call that science?".
About these arguments I can only say one thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM ;)
Oh, and cmacq, I noticed it sometimes could seem a bit like I'm attacking you, but that's not the case, I must assure you. Internet isn't very suitable for having such difficult argument.
Oh, and cmacq, I noticed it sometimes could seem a bit like I'm attacking you, but that's not the case, I must assure you. Internet isn't very suitable for having such difficult argument.
Indeed, not to worry as I never take offense. I understand the nature of this media.
It's not the UC Berkeley's Chess And Science Club on weed that makes those theories.
No, but there have been some very important changes in how research funding is awarded in the last 30 yrs. Unfortunately, in far too many cases this has impacted on academic staffing based on personal attributes rather that merit. Often many perceive the need to make a big splash, or to draw attention, no matter what their data may actually indicate. Of course, as always this is overlaid by academic natural selection whereby survival is far more often based on theoretical conformity than objective analysis. Overall, this has significantly altered the direction and narrowed the scope of research in many fields.
Personally, within my particular field I along with others, continue to work to correct interpretations of research conducted in the early 1990s. It was somewhat understood that there were significant problems with these interpretations at the time they were reviewed. Nonetheless, these interpretations have become somewhat imbedded in the literature. I addressed what I considered the most important aspect, the basic chronology, several years ago (I may add an endeavor that won me no new friends). However, if one were to check the current literature today, they will still find much of the corpus of the 1990s synthesis relatively intact (strangely with the inclusion of my chronology which on close inspection make the 1990 interpretations completely untenable). The real problem is that once something has been reviewed and gets into the literature it takes ten times more effort and time to correct the record. In fact, I’ve yet another meeting tomorrow morning in Phoenix that pertains to correcting that record.
But don't just say things like "pfff, Nobel price... If Al Gore wins one, it's worth nought" and "pfff, you call that science?".
Actually, the Gore Nobel is an excellent example in every detail, including the omission and falsification of critical data, of the altered direction and narrowed scope of research I reference above. By the way this Gore stuff has had its indirect impact on my research as well. Don’t fool yourself as in some disciplines; review for some researchers is little more than a rubber stamp or grammar/spell check. I think the real problem is that under current conditions, once a very marginal or entirely incorrect theory becomes imbedded it quickly worsens the scenario outlined above by further diverting and narrowing research to the point that may become nearly impossible to remove it from the literature.
Sorry, I must run for now
CmacQ
Ironside
05-29-2008, 18:22
The former. So much more interesting and so much "closer" to us. The big bang (which was actually very small at the beginning and quite soundless) is something far away in time, which we are trying to reconstruct with what we now about the universe today.
Which brings us to the theory of a non-eternal, non-steady universe.
And I think that theory pretty much proves the big bang too.
Please elaborate on the subject. You've got me interested. I know more than the average person of the subject (I learned it from a boo-que), but I always want to learn more.
You probably know several of these points, but they still need an explaination, that atleast a universe with a beginning gives.
Olber's paradox. In short, if the universe is infinite, eternal and filled with stars, why can we se darkness in the sky?
The red-shift of course.
The hydrogen-helium concentration, it's about 75%-25%, impossible to get by star fusion of hydrogen, as the helium is fusioned to heavier compounds. An eternal universe would then need to create matter in that composition.
Population II and III stars, aka why does it only exist stars with lower amount of heavier compounds, that's small and appears old?
Why is it more and smaller galaxies in the old universe? Alternativly, why does this happen in a circular distance from Earth?
Bah I knew I should've checked it out, I meant population I and II stars, population III haven't been discovered yet (Thanks to the logic in astronomy it's the oldest ones).
:oops:
Mediolanicus
05-29-2008, 20:18
Some good points there Ironside.
Notable exception with the red-shift being the blue shift of part of the Andromeda galaxy.
I'm going to try and find something useful on those population II and III stars because that's the point about which I know very little.
Something with the oldest stars being superheavy or something or other is all I know.
CmacQ, I totally agree that nothing can be taken for granted. A theory stays a theory and in casu it is almost certainly not flawless. On the contrary. And any corrections, changes take a while to be accepted. That's a fact in all things of life, I guess.
What is your chronology? And how does it make the mainstream interpretations untendable?
Please share us your views.
My chronology pertained to a relatively unrelated field. If you are still interested I can PM you more information. I used it as an example of how the process works. Actually, near universal acceptance of this chronology occurred very quickly, as the data was very clear and my argument very convincing, but it took several years to amass the data and write. Now, to address the other points, as this is a numbers game and to remove any doubt, I've been collecting data for the last 11 yrs, and have just started the write-ups.
Returning to why I don't buy the BBT, given the nature of the event, why do some interior structures appear much older than the construct as a whole? The estimated date of the event is also not supported by the general morphologies of distant galaxies.
out the door
CmacQ
Mediolanicus
05-29-2008, 21:55
Well, you've got me interested, so if you find the time, please do PM me.
I'm a bit preoccupied but I will, when I get a break.
Mediolanicus
06-01-2008, 16:11
As I said : when you find the time!
The hydrogen-helium concentration, it's about 75%-25%, impossible to get by star fusion of hydrogen, as the helium is fusioned to heavier compounds. An eternal universe would then need to create matter in that composition.
I'm not sure what that means; but it made me think of the fact that; as we get more and more generations of stars, they'll be just heavier and heavier to to the point that they cannot fuse any matter anymore; and I assume that a fission star is impossible?
I suppose that's true, but not that surprising really; no source of energy is ever inexhaustible. IIRC the turning-point where the binding energy of the nucleus is at its minimum is iron; anything lighter than iron can fuse to make heavier elements, and anything heavier can fission or decay into lighter elements. This is why elements heavier than iron can only be made in supernovae, because it's energetically unfavourable for them to form by fusion. I believe this is how we know our star is at least 2nd generation, because our solar system contains heavy elements.
Incidentally, if you are following this thread this story may interest you:
Hints of 'time before Big Bang' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm)
My chronology pertained to a relatively unrelated field. If you are still interested I can PM you more information. I used it as an example of how the process works. Actually, near universal acceptance of this chronology occurred very quickly, as the data was very clear and my argument very convincing, but it took several years to amass the data and write. Now, to address the other points, as this is a numbers game and to remove any doubt, I've been collecting data for the last 11 yrs, and have just started the write-ups.
Returning to why I don't buy the BBT, given the nature of the event, why do some interior structures appear much older than the construct as a whole? The estimated date of the event is also not supported by the general morphologies of distant galaxies.
*edit* I'm thinking it has something to do with either the speed of light or our measurement of (or estimates of) big distances using light... You're saying that we are incorrectly assuming that all light reaching us travelled an average speed of c in getting to us?
*edit*You're saying that we are incorrectly assuming that all light reaching us travelled an average speed of c in getting to us? No, what I'm saying is; based on the entire math (including that involving morphological formation), the projected relative date of the theoretical Big Bang Event is much more recent than the projected age of the galactic structures found within the result of said event. This is not a mater of simply revising the date of the theoretical event to fit the evidence. This is because the BB Event's relationship to the result is largely exacted by the math (distance).
You see the BBT was designed to mathematically explain only the relative distance between distant galactic structures hypostasized to be moving away from a common starting point. Of course within that context the age of individual galactic structures was not important. For the BBT to work mathematically in relation to individual galactic structures one would only have to rearrange the physical order of the universe to fit the theory. Or, one could physically restructure many of the galactic structures that we can perceive to a much earlier state. And, that may have an impact on our little take of the Copernican Principle.
Then again it might be a tad easier, that if the math does not fit, one must acquit this BBT to the dust bin of Turtle Back Theories. I’m not real sure if the fact that we are viewing these structures at different chronological stages is taken into account, which would throw the BBT even more out of wack. Faust, the assumption surrounding the light thing is an entirely different topic of why the BBT is a dead end. Initially, I had hoped to move more via the breadcrumb in a direction to explain rather than to disprove. This rather stenotic colloquy seems to dictate that this shall not be the way we proceed.
To view this topic in a light, other than the Doppler, please see the Compton effect.
CmacQ
I see... very interesting. Thanks very much!
To explain a bit more.
The cosmological red shift, explained as a result of the Doppler Effect (DE), is often used as a proof of the BBT. However, given all the known variables this observation is most likely a direct result of the Compton Effect. Briefly, the Compton Scattering (CS) or Compton Effect (CE) is represented by a decrease in energy, which is congruent with an increase in the wavelength of X-ray or gamma ray photons, when they interacts with matter. The extent of the wavelength increase is called the Compton Shift (CSt). Although Nuclear Compton Scattering (NCS) exists, CS typically refers only to the interaction of electrons within a given atom. The CE was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923 and later verified by his graduate student Y. H. Woo. Arthur Compton earned the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics for documenting this observation.
Inverse Compton Scattering (ICS) has also been observed, whereas photons gain energy, and correspondingly decrease wavelength upon interaction with matter. Overall, the CE is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained as only a wave phenomenon. The alternative Thomson Scattering theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, doesn’t explain the observed change in wavelength. In contrast, Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles, whose energy is proportional to a given frequency.
Herein, the physical mechanics of the CE represent an interaction between electrons and high energy photons that result in the transference of energy, realized as the retraction of the electrons and a directional change of the photons that remain charged, so that the overall momentum is conserved. If the photon retains enough energy, the process may repeat, as in this scenario, the electron is viewed as either free or loosely bound. If the photon has less, yet sufficient energy, in general only a few electronvolts comparable to that of visible light, it can eject an electron from its host atom completely, a process known as the Photoelectric Effect, rather than the CE.
The CE has been used to explain the red shift observations of bright very long wavelength extragalactic radio waves. It has also provided an explanation for the red shift emission of quasars and our own sun. Interestingly, quasars may actually be much closer than their red shift may suggest due to being surrounded by a gaseous atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This produces the unusual red shift as light transverses an atmosphere composed of concentrated electrons and loses energy to these electrons as per the CE.
Our sun’s red shift is obviously not due to the Doppler Effect, as it’s not moving away from us. This phonon demonstrates a variation in magnitude that corresponds to the number of electrons that lay directly along a given line of sight. Visually, these are fewest at the solar center and reach a maximum at the extremity where we view the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. Solar electrons are concentrated by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's photosphere to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift seem to represent concentrated atmospheric electrons at or very near the surface, again inspired by the CE.
Now to attribute the cosmological red shift to the CE, intergalactic space must have a given density of free electrons and/or positrons. Thus, the further light travels through this seemingly transparent medium, the greater the red shift, as Hubble's Law provides. The presence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space was demonstrated by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This was observed from the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory which is in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere. Although intergalactic space was once thought to be a vacuum, now we understand it’s actually filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This gas is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms made up of free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, as per the CE, it produces the red shift.
Thus, because of the variables the CE convincingly removes the DE as an explanation of the observed red shift phenomenon, as a proof of the BBT.
I hope this helps.
CmacQ
Rhyfelwyr
08-03-2008, 00:55
I still can't understand why anything exists at all.
That's the way I look at it, as well.
cmacq, a few questions and comments.
Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles
Not quite, since light still does certainly behave as a wave in the right circumstances. The major consequence of Compton's discovery was the idea of wave-particle duality, an idea which is anathema to classical theories but no problem in quantum mechanics.
Herein, the physical mechanics of the CE represent an interaction between electrons and high energy photons that result in the transference of energy, realized as the retraction of the electrons and a directional change of the photons that remain charged, so that the overall momentum is conserved.
Here's where my main problem lies; if the photon is being repeatedly Compton scattered by electrons throughout its journey, and each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction, how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction? At present the only significant limit on the clarity with which astronomical objects can be resolved is the optics of the telescope itself; if the light from such sources is being repeatedly scattered off the intervening medium enough to induce a significant redshift, at best they would appear as a fuzzy blob, at worst we would not be able to see them at all because it would be similar to trying to do astronomy through thick fog.
Our sun’s red shift is obviously not due to the Doppler Effect, as it’s not moving away from us.
Not strictly true according to General Relativity. According to this theory, the red shift is caused by the sun's gravitational well; since photons from the sun must climb out of the well to reach us, their energy is reduced by an amount equal to the depth of the potential well. Since a fundamental principle of GR is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial acceleration, this redshift really is the same as if the sun were moving away from us.
So since you are suggesting that this redshift is in fact caused by the Compton effect, are you also rejecting General Relativity in addition to the BBT? That's a big assertion and probably one worthy of a thread of its very own. While the BBT certainly does rely on General Relativity (or in some cases proposed extensions of it) the reverse is not true.
Thus, because of the variables the CE convincingly removes the DE as an explanation of the observed red shift phenomenon, as a proof of the BBT.
I suspect we may have to agree to differ on that. I'm afraid it just doesn't seem likely to me that the Compton effect could be causing a significant shift in energy without also introducing a significant random deflection in direction which is simply not observed.
I await your reply with interest.
A fair mix of comment and question, to frame a discussion, however therein are a few presumptions. For which I shall attempt to provide adequate commentary and answers.
Poor Bloody Infantry Comment 1) Not quite, since light still does certainly behave as a wave in the right circumstances. The major consequence of Compton's discovery was the idea of wave-particle duality, an idea which is anathema to classical theories but no problem in quantum mechanics.
Rebuttal 1) I think the key word in my initial statement was ‘Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles,' as I did not use ‘is.’ Regardless, indeed the duality of light is an important element to understanding why the galactic redshift is not the result of the Doppler Effect. Again, my feeble attempts to stay on tract or focused, and not to muddy the water, for those that follow. Of course the duality line would lead us inexorably to resonance, and although this is where we’re headed, I’m not prepared to go there yet.
Poor Bloody Infantry Comment 2) Here's where my main problem lies; if the photon is being repeatedly Compton scattered by electrons throughout its journey, and each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction,
Rebuttal 2) I think the key words in your statement was, ‘each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction.’ I don’t think I said that the changes in direction were scattered or random, rather that they were specific. As it pertains to a colour shift, of course we talking about either a lengthening of the wave or a change in resonance. The usage is Compton Scattering or Compton Effect, not Comption scattered as technically, the effect is not defined by random scattering.
Poor Bloody Infantry Question 1) how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction?
Answer 1) I don’t believe the evidence actually indicates that galactic light approaches our system from the one direction. If so that would mean that galactic structures within one or more visual vectors would demonstrate the redshift, while in one or more vectors the blueshift would be evident. The way I understand the evidence, is that all distant galactic structure are marked by the redshift, and all near structures are marked by the blueshift, regardless of the visual vector. For example, we have the Triangulum and Andromeda Galaxies and many other blueshifters. Please see the vectored view of the Local Group (LG) provided below, as you will note that distance and not visual vectoring is the qualifying factor for redshift vs blueshift. Also note this view is relatively flat, so those features that appear near the center bottom of the graphic, are referenced with doted lines to plot there location, and are not below the horizon of the LG.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Local_Group.JPG
Remember everything within the graphic is in motion and this is relative, not scattered nor random. Also the intergalactic space between these larger structures, are much smaller features, isolates, debris, and dust; as well as an extremely dispersed element state with about one hydrogen atom per 1 m3.
Sorry, I've got to run, but shall return to the answers soon.
CmacQ
Rebuttal 2) I think the key words in your statement was, ‘each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction.’ I don’t think I said that the changes in direction were scattered or random, rather that they were specific. As it pertains to a colour shift, of course we talking about either a lengthening of the wave or a change in resonance. The usage is Compton Scattering or Compton Effect, not Comption scattered as technically, the effect is not defined by random scattering.
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but by Compton scattering, I understand you to refer to the process whereby an electron absorbs a photon, and then re-emits a photon of a longer wavelength. If this is the mechanism by which the redshift is introduced then since it is a quantum mechanical process the direction in which the photon is re-emitted is inherently random.
A second problem arises if we take a look at the Compton scattering equation:
(initial wavelength) - (final wavelength) = (constant) * (1-cos(D))
Where D is the angle by which the photon is deflected from its original direction of motion. Thus, while a few photons will continue on their original heading and not be deflected, if we set the angle D to be zero for such a case it is clear that in this case that the initial and final wavelengths will be identical, thus they will not be redshifted.
So this is the problem I have with the idea of Compton scattering causing galactic redshift. Firstly, the deflection of the light in addition to the lengthening of its wavelength should mean that at best galaxies should appear as fuzzy blobs rather than clearly defined objects, and improving the telescope resolution will not reveal any further detail. At worst, the scattering of photons will be so severe that distant objects will not be visible at all since the scattering will be so severe that the interstellar medium would be effectively opaque.
Secondly, any light which travels directly to us in a straight line will not be redshifted at all no matter how many electrons it scatters off. Thus, we have two clear predictions from a theory of redshift caused by Compton scattering: Smearing of images of galaxies which will not be improved by improving the telescope, and light from the center of the image should not be redshifted at all. Neither of these is observed, which to me seems to be a severe flaw in such a theory.
Question 1) how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction?
Answer 1) I don’t believe the evidence actually indicates that galactic light approaches our system from the one direction. If so that would mean that galactic structures within one or more visual vectors would demonstrate the redshift, while in one or more vectors the blueshift would be evident. The way I understand the evidence, is that all distant galactic structure are marked by the redshift, and all near structures are marked by the blueshift, regardless of the visual vector. For example, we have the Triangulum and Andromeda Galaxies and many other blueshifters. Please see the vectored view of the Local Group (LG) provided below, as you will note that distance and not visual vectoring is the qualifying factor for redshift vs blueshift. Also note this view is relatively flat, so those features that appear near the center bottom of the graphic, are referenced with doted lines to plot there location, and are not below the horizon of the LG.
Actually, I was simply referring to the light from a single galaxy all arriving from the same direction rather than coming from many directions in space which is what I would expect if the light is being repeatedly scattered. As I mentioned above, the image should be smeared out, rather like a light seen through thick fog.
Poor Bloody Infantry
I’m a bit tied up right now, but give me a few days to respond to your question.
CmacQ
Please take all the time you need.
Speaking of which, I should probably get back to work too, since interesting as this discussion is, it's not going to get my thesis written. ~:( :whip:
The Master's...
by the way, your thesis is?
Part I
Directly, the answer to your question was from a pervious post, found in the following sentence, however I’ll admit it was rather laconic and vague.
‘Remember everything within the graphic is in motion and this is relative, not scattered nor random.’
As a reference, this may sound a bit obtuse, but please bear with me, as this provides the rationale for my answer. Previously I posted that the way the Copernican Principle has recently been employed, i.e. the earth is as good as any other place to observe the universe, is utter rubbish. I maintain that the earth is actually a horrific place (but not the worst) to view the universe, as there are available far better points from which to surveil.
The reasons are as follow. First, in theory our planet lays within the Terran star system, wherein we have a single G2 class base star, several planets; several dwarf planets, numerous moons, billions of smaller bodies, debris, dust, solar winds, the Interplanetary Medium, and the Oort Cloud. All of these exist within a horizontal plane, which is tilted at a particular angle in relation to our galaxy, and is in relative motion around the base star, our sun. Although collectively, these motions are not uniform, yet neither are they random, as there is an interdependence, however dominated by the base star.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Outersolarsystem_objectpositions_labels_comp.png/300px-Outersolarsystem_objectpositions_labels_comp.png
Next our Terran star system is in motion within a Local Interstellar Cloud, known as the Local Fluff. This is an outflow from the Sco-Cen, and is roughly 30 light years across. This gas cloud has a temperature of 6000° C, which is about the same surface temperature of the Sun. Overall, it’s very dispersed, with a density of 0.26 atoms per cm3. Interestingly the Local Fluff is in motion in relation to the Sco-Cen. Again this motion is not random.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Localcloud.gif/300px-Localcloud.gif
Our system along with the Local Fluff and other fellow travelers are in motion within the Local Bubble. This is a cavity in the interstellar medium, which I’ll get to next. It’s about 300 light years from one side to another and has a neutral hydrogen density of approximately 0.05 atoms per cm3. This diffused gas is hot and somehow emits X-rays. This in part is likely due to the Local Bubble being the remains of a supernovae that exploded between two to four million years ago.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/Local_bubble.jpg/300px-Local_bubble.jpg
Next our system, the Local Fluff, and the Local Bubble are in motion within the interstellar medium which is in turn associated with the Orion Arm. The interstellar medium (ISM) is another gaseous formation that surrounds the stars that compose the greater structure of our Milky Way Galaxy. Its density is about 0.5 atoms per cm3. Overall the ISM within the Orion Arm (OA) is very big and as one of several minor arms, the OA is in motion between the Sagittarius and the Perseus arms, two of the four major arms of the our galaxy. All these are in relative motion, which is dominated by the center of our galaxy. Although so complex they're beyond our current understanding, none of these motions can be classified as random.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Orion_Arm.JPG
Beyond this, along the plane of the intergalactic horizon is intergalactic space which, as provided above, has a theoretical average density of around one hydrogen atom per 1 m3. This expanse is in motion as is the Local Group, seen in the graphic above, as are the seemingly numberless other groups of galaxies found further afield. Again, all these are in motion and these motions are all relative.
The point and the answer to question to follow.
CmacQ
Since you ask, I am studying for a PhD in Theoretical Physics. The research we do is all about finding new techniques for performing scattering calculations to provide predictions for experiments such as those at the LHC (although that makes my work sound altogether more grand than it actually is); hence why I know a thing or two about Quantum Mechanics and Compton scattering (though of course, I certainly wouldn't claim to know everything there is to know about either of those topics).
To be precise, what we do is to work on alternative methods for finding scattering amplitudes in Quantum Field Theories, since the Feynman diagram techniques currently used become wildly inefficient for interactions involving large numbers of particles. To crank the jargon up a notch, we specifically use Unitarity-based methods which allow complicated loop integrals to be reduced to products of tree amplitudes multiplied by a known integral basis.
The other interesting strand of our research revolves around the study of N=8 Supersymmetric Quantum Gravity. As you may know, most quantum theories of gravity suffer problems with infinite terms appearing in calculations which are impossible to cancel. One possible way around this is to treat particles as extended objects, known as String Theory; however, this approach is fraught with its own set of problems (as well as being an utter nightmare to calculate anything in). The hope of N=8 SUGRA is that due to large cancellations in such a heavily supersymmetric theory the infinite terms will not appear, allowing for the possibility of a Quantum theory of gravity without introducing all the problems of String Theory.
So far, no divergent terms have been found in any of the N=8 amplitudes calculated. In fact, the cancellation between terms appears to be a good deal stronger than expected from the degree of Supersymmetry. This is interesting because this additional cancellation is quite distinct from the Supersymmetric contribution, and the mechanism behind it is AFAIK pretty much a mystery. Obviously, as more N=8 amplitudes are explicitly calculated, the picture will become clearer, which is where we come in with our unitarity methods.
The problem, of course, is that even if N=8 SUGRA turns out to be finite in four dimensions, nature is simply not N=8 supersymmetric. Therefore, the best we can ever hope for with N=8 is that it could act as a proof-of-concept that a sensible quantum field theory of gravity can exist (albeit not in this universe), and also hopefully as a context in which to study this mysterious new cancellation. The longer term picture depends largely on whether extensions of the theory can be found which look anything like the real universe; my supervisor once described it something along these lines:
The question is whether N=8 SUGRA will turn out to be Rockall, an isolated, barren patch of rationality in a vast sea of divergence; or whether it will be Tahiti, a single island in a vast chain of rich and diverse islands (not to mention a more appealing holiday destination than Rockall).
Of course, if you managed to follow any of what I just wrote, you're doing better than I am!
sorry,
but I'm currently consumed by a very important project. I shall return.
CmacQ
Understood, no hurry.
Good luck with your project.
never big bang!, magical gnomes made the world and it will not be said otherwise!
Poor Bloody Infantry; first question.
As you’re more familiar with this subject than I, was the review offered above, of the known and relevant features that comprise the universe, inclusive? Or, did I omit any important structures that would impact incoming light?
CmacQ
As far as I'm aware it's inclusive, but it's not my specialism. I find astronomy interesting, certainly, and I took a few modules in it in my undergraduate degree, but I am very definitely a physicist and not an astronomer. I mostly know about scattering processes and quantum mechanics, with a healthy dollop of relativity thrown in for good measure.
So I certainly wouldn't claim to be more knowledgeable than you on astronomy, and as far as I'm aware your summary of the known features making up our surroundings in space is a pretty good one, but the problem is it does not address my earlier points, which pertain to the nature of Compton scattering on a more fundamental level.
It doesn't especially matter what particular structures or media are responsible for the Compton scattering, the point is that I simply cannot see how sufficient Compton scattering could occur to introduce a signficant redshift without also introducing a random (in the true, quantum mechanical sense of the word) deflection of the direction of the light which would make it impossible to observe clearly defined structures such as galaxies.
It doesn't especially matter what particular structures or media are responsible for the Compton scattering, the point is that I simply cannot see how sufficient Compton scattering could occur to introduce a signficant redshift without also introducing a random (in the true, quantum mechanical sense of the word) deflection of the direction of the light which would make it impossible to observe clearly defined structures such as galaxies.
Right, more to your field.
Poor Bloody Infantry; second question
When we say Compton scattering, given light's nature, do we mean an actual particle deflection, the increase of wavelengths, or due to duality, an alteration in the resonance of quantum fields (with an added decrease in velocity)? Just addressing the attributes of the observation and although I know its important, I’m purposely leaving out the fact that the light has a given velocity.
CmacQ
Papewaio
10-02-2008, 01:50
IMDHO from what I can vaguely recollect.
Compton scattering is the change in energy of the photon due to interaction with matter.
Now as it is a photon it only travels at the speed of light. It doesn't slow down. Therefore if it loses energy it will have to change its wavelength/frequency. So as it loses energy it redshifts.
With Compton scattering the change in energy is in proportion to the change in direction. So any Compton scattering red shift will cause a change in its direction. This scattering is not uniform like that of light refraction, so unlike a rainbow if you scatter all the photons from an object it will be blurred at best. Compton shifted light will both be randomly scattered (blurry) and as such have different red shifts (you'd get a redshifted hump for the spectroscopic lines rather then a relativistic redshifted bright line)
Also at the visible wavelengths instead of Compton scattering the photons could just as likely be causing the photoelectric effect with the matter they are interacting with. So instead of even being randomly scattered and red shifted, the light problem will just ionise the local matter and stop there.
So if any great degree of Compton scattering was going to occur it would:
a) Leave blurry pictures
b) Have a redshift 'hump' of the spectroscopic lines
c) Leave little in the visible light spectrum to see because of the photoelectric effect.
In short you would see the stars in the infra-red spectrum if at all, and they would be blurry blobs.
Sorry,
I may be completely wrong, and my argument may by now be clear, but I'm headed somewhere with my setup and questions.
The point is in a nutshell, that in the controlled environment of the lab, the Compton Effect is observed when the photon is in motion, while the target matter it impacts is relatively static and thus any motion on its part, is indeed random. Thus, the directional deflection of the photon is also random, and we have scattering. In contrast, in the ultimately larger context, the target matter belongs to specific features and/or structures, such as those outlined above. This matter is indeed not static, nor is its motion radom, as it has a relatively common nonrandom velocity and directional motion within each of the given features and/or structures. Thus, as incoming photons pass through these specific features and/or structures and strike matter, some visual distortion may occur, yet directional defection is relatively uniform, in much the same manner, as when light passes through earth’s atmosphere? Now if space were an entirely empty void, this certainly would not be the case, and the observation would indeed be the result of the Doppler Effect, however space is not empty?
CmacQ
Papewaio
10-07-2008, 05:14
Photons are always moving at the speed of light. The speed of matter unless also moving close to the speed of light would not matter (no pun intended). I'm not sure if matter moving at relativistic speeds has an impact on the Compton equations (again no pun intended).
Also as noted above because the deflection would not be uniform this would mean that he spectra would be blurred. Rather then just shifted to the red. The lines would be fatter and dimmer because of Compton scattering. Refraction in the atmosphere has a uniform angle change. Also some of the spectra would be absorbed depending on the matter encountered (this is how the Greenhouse effect works).
Also matter at all times is moving and random in motion unless it has a temperature of 0 Kelvin. This is lower then the background radiation of the observed Universe (something like 3 Kelvin). As long as matter has a temperature above 0 kelvin then matter moves, that is what heat is.
Photons are always moving at the speed of light. The speed of matter unless also moving close to the speed of light would not matter (no pun intended). I'm not sure if matter moving at relativistic speeds has an impact on the Compton equations (again no pun intended).
Indeed, to tell the truth, neither do I. However, that is the question. Several lines of evidence might suggest that it does.
CmacQ
Now as it is a photon it only travels at the speed of light. It doesn't slow down. Therefore if it loses energy it will have to change its wavelength/frequency. So as it loses energy it redshifts.
According to a wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation) article, the speed of light in water is 0.75 c. I'm not sure about the validity of that velocity, but the fact that the speed of light depends on the medium is the cause of Cherenkov radiation. Photons do not have any mass; such that the velocity would not really matter for the energy?
https://img110.imageshack.us/img110/880/advancedtestreactorfv3.jpg
Since space is not a perfect vacuum, one would assume that even in the so called vacuum of space; light does not travel at a constant speed?
Of course, none of this appear to have any relevance to the debate at hand (a debate which is a bit beyond me).
Old Geezer
02-16-2009, 06:02
Big Bang Theories are philosophical/religious theories and have no basis in demonstrable scientific facts, but rather contradict science and logic to such an extent as to be patently silly.
Strike For The South
02-16-2009, 06:03
Big Bang Theories are philosophical/religious theories and have no basis in demonstrable scientific facts, but rather contradict science and logic to such an extent as to be patently silly.
Have you heard of the backroom? We like people like you.
Big Bang Theories are philosophical/religious theories and have no basis in demonstrable scientific facts, but rather contradict science and logic to such an extent as to be patently silly.
I agree with strike for the south on this one. I also add this: can you care to explain from where you get the idea of yours from?:inquisitive:
Kadagar_AV
05-24-2009, 04:13
Why cant we leave faith out of the science forum?
It is 2009, not 1909 or 1809.
If there is a creator I am sure science will find him. Till then can we leave religious superstition out of this forum? Again: Out of this SCIENCE forum.
Why cant we leave faith out of the science forum?
It is 2009, not 1909 or 1809.
If there is a creator I am sure science will find him. Till then can we leave religious superstition out of this forum? Again: Out of this SCIENCE forum.
Though you could call me an atheist, personally I don't think science and religion can't go hand in hand. They just have to be seperated and not intermixed when practicing science. When not practicing science you can make your own image based on a combination of both, but while practising it you should indeed not let (a) god or the idea of (a) god influence you. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god or gods. Science isn't about excluding ideas, but about proving or acknowleding theories if they are scientificly proven or at least supported and probable, based on the scientific method, Ockham, empiric evidence,... You can believe in god, but you can't say god exist in science unless using scientific methods first for proving or supporting such a theory first. And if you can't do the latter it's merely the scienitific way of not involving suspicions that yet have scientific base. The thruth about the matter not being questioned.
Though you could call me an atheist, personally I don't think science and religion can't go hand in hand. They just have to be seperated and not intermixed when practicing science. When not practicing science you can make your own image based on a combination of both, but while practising it you should indeed not let (a) god or the idea of (a) god influence you. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god or gods. Science isn't about excluding ideas, but about proving or acknowleding theories if they are scientificly proven or at least supported and probable, based on the scientific method, Ockham, empiric evidence,... You can believe in god, but you can't say god exist in science unless using scientific methods first for proving or supporting such a theory first. And if you can't do the latter it's merely the scienitific way of not involving suspicions that yet have scientific base. The thruth about the matter not being questioned.
true I guess..
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2009, 19:36
I have a serious problem with the big bang but unfortunately no better solution has come along yet so I stick with it till we prove otherwise.
My main problem is before it is nothing after there is something this sounds completely daft in my view.
I have no problem with how science proves the creation of planets and stars from the billionth of a second right after the fact. However the exact instant of creation is my sticking point it doesnt make sense.
I like the analogy of the two dimensional people who exist on a sheet of paper unable to realise they live on a three dimensional object. They will never fully comprehend the higher level of dimensions but they may theorise about them but will fail at explanation of what they would be like.
We are those people we will never explain the creative moment of our universe we can be 99.9% sure God did not do it but never 100%.
Maybe we should never bother to try explain it or maybe we should just try knowing we will only reveal more ignorance of the actual moment.
:book:
I have a serious problem with the big bang but unfortunately no better solution has come along yet so I stick with it till we prove otherwise.
My main problem is before it is nothing after there is something this sounds completely daft in my view.
WHAT??!
no body to my knowlege who is an authority on the subject actually says that; the big bang merely says that all the universe, with time and space, was concentrated into a "singularity", which expanded, making an explosion of space-time*. where the singulariy came from is not explained, nor is it meant to be by the theory (per se); for all we know, we are being s***ed out of another old universe. but no scientific theory says that something was of nothing-that is magic (i.e religion as well). and this is from a muslim of all people. :clown:
*thus it is not an "explosion" as we know it. it wasn't even an explosion per se.
gaelic cowboy
09-17-2009, 16:21
WHAT??!
no body to my knowlege who is an authority on the subject actually says that; the big bang merely says that all the universe, with time and space, was concentrated into a "singularity", which expanded, making an explosion of space-time*. where the singulariy came from is not explained, nor is it meant to be by the theory (per se); for all we know, we are being s***ed out of another old universe. but no scientific theory says that something was of nothing-that is magic (i.e religion as well). and this is from a muslim of all people. :clown:
*thus it is not an "explosion" as we know it. it wasn't even an explosion per se.
No might say it but the elephant is there all the same in the dark room one minute there's nothing then there is something as they say that cant happen cos thats magic.
I mean where did this singularity come from how did it manage to exist if nothing existed before because surely it had no place to exist IN
If it came form another universe then surely it is being made to exist outside its place of existence HOW can that happen
I also said I had no problem with the theory milliseconds after it happened I just cannot accept the actual creative moment as you pointed it feels almost religious or magical.
If were from another Universe your shifting the goals but not stadium you still need a start point. I will as it were never accept the actual creative moment of our universe I will however accept how things like planets and stars etc etc came into being directly after it.
No might say it but the elephant is there all the same in the dark room one minute there's nothing then there is something as they say that cant happen cos thats magic.
one minute there's nothing, the next this singularity...who said that was what happened? as I said, it is both irrelevent to the idea of the big bang (expanding universe), and is an unknown. for all we know the singularity was always there, or that it was from an older parallel universe-we can't possibly know, with the scientific tools currently available.
I mean where did this singularity come from how did it manage to exist if nothing existed before because surely it had no place to exist IN
again, who says? yes, the universe expanded into the nothing, but it doesn't mean that it came from nothing, we don't know, and we can't say Godidit.
If it came form another universe then surely it is being made to exist outside its place of existence HOW can that happen?
don't ask me, I'm not the cosmologist who came up with that idea. and as I said, its an unknown. the idea of a universe that seeded this one is one idea, but it is without evidence and untestable with what we now have.
I also said I had no problem with the theory milliseconds after it happened I just cannot accept the actual creative moment as you pointed it feels almost religious or magical.
If were from another Universe your shifting the goals but not stadium you still need a start point. I will as it were never accept the actual creative moment of our universe I will however accept how things like planets and stars etc etc came into being directly after it.
again, who said it was a creative moment? we don't know what happened before the expansion of this singularity, and we can't even really test for it with what we have, let alone answer that question.
and who said I was shifting the goal posts? I said that the universe might have come out of another. I never indicated whether I agree or not. and as I meantioned for the half dozenth time, its an unknown.
my point is simple: we can't say that the universe (the "singularity") was "created (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs&feature=channel_page)" as what happened before the big bang is an Unknown. and as long as its an unknown, we cannot assume that it even had a "beginning" or a moment of creation.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.