The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[Singularitarian]

I don't understand why you go on about the Universe choosing stuff...it is not a living being, is it?
Or do you hold the belief the Universe is alive with free will?

Or are you in the "god did it camp"?

Also this bit "The problem here is simple. Why this universe out of so many?"
My question would be why not?
Why did you get those genes from your mom and dad?Switch out some of the genes you got from half your moms gene pool for some of the other ones...who would you be then?A woman perhaps? (I did go by the assumtion that you are male if you aren't please just adapt my wording accordingly)

As for the actual physics, I am in no way qualified to answer.

I'll explain why, and no physicist should deny what i say.

It must have chosen these conditions; but i never implied any conscious decision. A decision can be assumed to be the ''most likely appearance of a universal wave function state, making all other wave statistics vanishingly small.

P.s. - the closest thing to JHWH is a Singularity. Think about why.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Except, with world arising with a population of many scientists, what is our excuse for entrtaining the theory so long?

You mean the Big Bang Theory?

Our excuse for entertaining it so long is the "population of many scientists". Well, specifically the physicists.

 

[Singularitarian]

You mean the Big Bang Theory?

Our excuse for entertaining it so long is the "population of many scientists". Well, specifically the physicists.

Conurrently, i agree with the highest repect.

 

[sol invictus]

I am absolutely sure that (even with the alternative theories flying around) that big bang is one of the most erreneous theories ever created.

If you're going to use fancy words, I suggest you learn to spell them correctly. People might take you more seriously that way.

So i will go over the big bang from a quantum viewpoint, and show how its ridiculous claims have been more complicated to condition the big bang into a workble theory. It seems that big bang originally caused more problems than what it solves.

The big bang was (and remains) forced on physicists by overwhelming observational evidence. To deny it is to bury your head in the sand.

Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

No one knows. Next question. (And by the way, your characterization of ground states is gibberish where it isn't flat-out wrong.)

There was not enough time to start the universe!

There's something called the "horizon problem" it sounds like you're referring to. It's solved by inflation - and it's a funny sort of "problem" anyway.

The universe had to expand faster than light!

There's absolutely nothing in relativity that says that can't happen. So why do you think it's a problem?

Something Came from Nothing?

Current physics cannot tell us what came before the big bang. Perhaps it was nothing, perhaps it was something. We don't know, which is a problem in the sense that it's something to work on, but there are many known possibilities which are perfectly mathematically consistent, and in some of those there really was nothing before.

What's north of the north pole?

Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense

That has little or nothing to do with the big bang.

 

[Geezer]

I'll explain why, and no physicist should deny what i say.

It must have chosen these conditions; but i never implied any conscious decision. A decision can be assumed to be the ''most likely appearance of a universal wave function state, making all other wave statistics vanishingly small.

P.s. - the closest thing to JHWH is a Singularity. Think about why.

Nope, sorry you lost me.
Now my native tongue isn't english so that could be why I don't get it, as far as I know choice is a function of an action that requires life (not consciousness), a rock falling down a hillside didn't choose to fall, it just did (perhaps due to erosion or some such) but a spider on the other hand may choose to go this way or that.

And no, the closest thing to the judeo-christian god would be Tinkerbell.

 

[Cayvmann]

Multiple errors I have a Diploma in Physics, but i will accept this as a challenge, for i do enjoy a good challenge.

Why don't you raise the point of any erreneous statement, and i will counter it - how about that for a fair analysis of who has mde mistakes?

I hold you to putting your money where your mouth is.

You didn't get this "diploma" in physics from Liberty University, did you?

 

[Careyp74]

The First Incongruity

Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?

In the principle of least action, it seems that a ground state universe would have begun much like the laws that govern a ground state atom. An atom in a ground state will arrange it's electrons to a specific frequency which allows it to yield as little energy as possible. But to do this, it would need to make sure to give up certain properties of location with respect with one another (1).

If our universe did begin in a ground state then the laws of physics cannot permit it to have any unique radius or time, or even a beginning. A ground state universe could not have begun therego as a singular region (2) in spacetime with a sturcture similar to a black hole. Instead of a singular region in the center of this black hole, there would be a wormhole at its center.

If it didn't it would have to have chosen an excited state, where there will be a point eventually where the universe will quantum leap into a new state, and a catastrophic reduction of energy will unfold. This means that the energy contained in this universe could in the future vanish totally from this spacetime realm, and quite possibly ''seep'' through womrholes into another universe which is in a ground state.

Why would the universe have to follow the same rules as an atom? I don't follow those rules. I am not aligned with electrons flying around me. My cup doesn't have any covalent bonds with my keyboard.

The second Incongruity

There was not enough time to start the universe!

The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micrwave temperatures to be homogeneous (3).

Why not? How much time is enough time? How much time do we think the universe had? The first incongruity hasn't been proven yet "therego" this one isn't proven.

The Third Incongruity

The universe had to expand faster than light!

So, because we have a model of the big bang which did not fit the discription of what we are observing in the vast universe, we had to allow even more changes. To give the universe more time, we have to begin it from a much smaller size, but to also balance (a reasonably smooth background radiation), we also had to invite the idea of the particle called the Inflaton, and an entirely new and almost proposterous concept called The Inflationary Phase of the universe where spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light. Fine tuning opportunists took hold of this an asked exactly why inflation began when it did. But more importantly, if inflation is just a mathematical trick which it seems to be then a beginning of time is very troublesome for any modern day concept of big bang.

Perhaps a link to the model in question is appropriate at this point. The rest is just going down hill with talk about scientist theories that I have not heard of before, so I wonder who these scientists are talking about parallel universes. I have to do a little research now....
As far as Wolf goes, anyone who can read past page 30 has more patience for truth than I do.

 

[Singularitarian]

One question from a poster at a time, please. Let me asnwer the questions so far, before any more imliment my brain to cease functioning. Any more, and there might be a chance of catatonic depletion.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Singulatarian!

I am sorry that he JREF was it's usual self and got cranky before addressing your post. to all,

The main issue is this:

When Hubble noticed the galaxies were moving away at a rate proportional to the distance that they appear to have from the earth. This observation is more and more fine tuned over time. So unless you find a way to red shift light that is proportional to its distance from the observer, the conclusion is that the universe is expanding.

This is the data and the hypothesis to explain the data.

Then someone (many someones) decided to say "Hmmm, what is a consequence of this hypothesis?" And they said what would the consequence be of the expansion of the universe, and they created a model/theory where they theoretically ran the expansion of the universe in reverse. Hoyle did not like this and he dubbed it the Big Bang.

So far that is it, the theory does not state what started the BBE nor does it speculate as to the cause of the BBE, it just assumes the universe is expanding and then goes backwards. It is a very effective theory that matches the observations up to a point very shortly after the BBE.

I am not a physicist.

First ground vs. excited state: this is not a question that the BBT can answer at this time.

Second: time. Um the model breaks down at ~10^-47-10^-36 after the BBE, one of many issues is quantum reconciliation with relativity. Partly the some issues are resolved with inflationary theory. But my understanding also breaks down at this point, where you have infinities at scales.

Third: inflation. It is a theory and there seems to be a clinging to older models, the universe does not care what our presuppositions are, it is what it is. Some may cling to older notions of what the universe has to be.

Fourth: Ex nihilio, the common philosophical objection of most BBE detractors, including Hoyle. The universe may or may not have come from nothing. We do not know and can not say at this time. That is the nothing of the BBE, what we can currently say about the universe prior to the BBE> It seems likely it came from something but that is speculative.

Fifth multiple space times: they are a consequence of some of the models of both quantum physics and inflation. They are however theoretical constructs and interpretive speculation in many cases. They are not required by the BBT because it just states: the universe appears to be expanding and then goes from there. the model does not state what is outside the universe or prior to the BBE.

 

[GeeMack]

Except, with world arising with a population of many scientists, what is our excuse for entrtaining the theory so long?

(A) Maybe because the theory is so well supported by evidence, you know, that silly little matter of pretty much all the data fitting the theory, that the scientific community doesn't see reason to abandon it?

(B) Maybe because the tens of thousands of educated and professional scientists on Earth, thousands of physicists among them, haven't read your 1125 word thesis above, experienced their epiphany, and decided to toss out the Big Bang theory because some guy on the internet doesn't seem to understand it?

(C) Maybe because the kind of ignorance and incredulity you display isn't common among contemporary scientists?

The exuse of the ancients who lived before us, working on novice alchemy, vivisections on dogs whilst still alive, and believing a many array of unedeveloped science, at least the latter has an explanation to why to believe outrageous theories.

See answer "C" above.

One question from a poster at a time, please. Let me asnwer the questions so far, before any more imliment my brain to cease functioning.

Too late, perhaps?

 

[Dancing David]

I'll explain why, and no physicist should deny what i say.

It must have chosen these conditions; but i never implied any conscious decision. A decision can be assumed to be the ''most likely appearance of a universal wave function state, making all other wave statistics vanishingly small.

P.s. - the closest thing to JHWH is a Singularity. Think about why.

Um, this post in in the wrong Forum you want R&P not SMT.

And NO, JHVH is a blood soaked sinai dust devil. If they exist they are a demiurgos and not the cause or source. Duh.

 

[Singularitarian]

Why would the universe have to follow the same rules as an atom? I don't follow those rules. I am not aligned with electrons flying around me. My cup doesn't have any covalent bonds with my keyboard.



Why not? How much time is enough time? [1] How much time do we think the universe had? The first incongruity hasn't been proven yet "therego" this one isn't proven.



[]Perhaps a link to the model in question is appropriate at this point. The rest is just going down hill with talk about scientist theories that I have not heard of before [2] [/b], so I wonder who these scientists are talking about parallel universes. I have to do a little research now....
As far as Wolf goes, anyone who can read past page 30 has more patience for truth than I do. [3]

[1] - enough time, if yo had folowed the work correctly, to reconcile the time required for the current age we set it at, and a conseqential relatioship to the Planck Time, in which the universe arose from. This is called the First Chronon.

[2] - Is that my fault? I am here to educate on modern theories, not excruciate them to the highest impunity to make as no sense you as to anyone else, for i am here to learn myself.

[3] - And?

 

[Dancing David]

One question from a poster at a time, please. Let me asnwer the questions so far, before any more imliment my brain to cease functioning. Any more, and there might be a chance of catatonic depletion.

Sorry this is the JREF, just take them one at a time , I limit myself in these situations, respond up to point and then pick it up later.

 

[Singularitarian]

Um, this post in in the wrong Forum you want R&P not SMT.

And NO, JHVH is a blood soaked sinai dust devil. If they exist they are a demiurgos and not the cause or source. Duh.

Obviously what i meant escaped you... anyone else require a go...

(IN facto, emundo, don't bother.) - The point was that no diquate theory based from a theological viewpoint could be allowed to describe God. Likewise, a singular region in spacetime is where physical laws break down, and all the parameters fail to be defined, as they become obsolete under infinite boundaries. Does no one here know physics?

 

[Dancing David]

It's ... ..

... not as straight-cut like you assume here, as too many variables plague what can be decisively acquired. For instance, it's a matter of semantics and general experimental confirmation of parts of the theory. If we follow this theory because it ''seems'' best, we are no wiser to believe this since we know quantum mechanics is beyond usually the comprehensible. Invariable it also means that a rising popularity has contributed to this, and as a larger camp form in praising this theory for its minor successes, it still seems we do it out of pure faith. That's my conclusion.

Well that is it, might as well close the thread.

Mind is closed.

 

[Singularitarian]

Sorry this is the JREF, just take them one at a time , I limit myself in these situations, respond up to point and then pick it up later.

Me*

lol

 

[nathan]

I have a Diploma in Physics

Isn't that something you get for failing a degree so badly you do not merit a 3rd?

 

[Dancing David]

Obviously what i meant escaped you... anyone else require a go...

(IN facto, emundo, don't bother.) - The point was that no diquate theory based from a theological viewpoint could be allowed to describe God. Likewise, a singular region in spacetime is where physical laws break down, and all the parameters fail to be defined, as they become obsolete under infinite boundaries. Does no one here know physics?

I suggest that you cease and desist your philosophical ramblings, they are speculation as to Absolutes and Ultimate Causes (Lollipos and Leprechauns) and they are not open to Observation and Modeling(Data and Theory). As such they are Philosophy and not appropriate for this Forum.

Fortunately I am going out of town and I doubt anyone else will be so bold as to report your nonsense and ask that it be split to R&P.

Blessed be! See this in threedays!

 

[Singularitarian]

Well that is it, might as well close the thread.

Mind is closed.

Only if i said was absolute - Ufortunately, only half of my theory can be poven along with refeences, but it cannot consolidate a format a conclusion in the previous queery without resorting to any possible biased viewpoint;

I only gave that view, upon request.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You say my wordsare salad: The most increadible thing here is that you have not provided any contrary evidence to my claims.

That's because your claims are insufficiently coherent to have any meaning to refute. If I respond that the Big Bang must have happened because waveling smots denatulate the crevending perspinalities, what's your rebuttal? Your claims make about as much sense as that.

Dave