What debate? We aren't having a debate except in your imagination. You're trolling, I sometimes answer and sometimes ignore. You don't know what a debate is. It certainly isn't a discussion where someone acts as you do because you'd be a laughing stock.
New in cosmology and fundamental physics
Sort:
Since you no longer even attempt to argue about a topical subject, I and probably many others can only conslude that you're mentally ill, because all this is going on inside your mind and nowhere else. What do you actually get out of it and why do you continue with it?
Optimissed wrote:
Since you no longer even attempt to argue about a topical subject, I and probably many others can only conslude that you're mentally ill, because all this is going on inside your mind and nowhere else. What do you actually get out of it and why do you continue with it?
I guess you didn't ask your wife about it, instead you just responded exactly as I just predicted you would. If you had some self-awareness, you'd probably be able to avoid stepping right in it like that...
Sep 19, 2023
0
#2065
I wonder what the the difference between a singularity and a zero point is? I'm not convinced singularities exist. We don't understand the math. Couldn't it just be a bunch of Planck scale stuff packed together and then when the pressure is too great it just explodes into a new universe? Greene says this has been disproven. But it seems so intuitive to me.
Sep 20, 2023
0
#2066
Sillver1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/ftIllWczf5w?si=xt9zIHucnatdPDjC
you may reconsider conway definition of fw after watching him illustrate it. 24:28
I've read him describing it, so don't see why I should. The reason it is of interest is that it is a meaningful definition. There isn't one with all the metaphysical baggage.
The main conclusion of the Free Will Theorem includes a simple description of the definition, and it is perfectly reasonable:
If humans possess free will in the sense that their actions are not determined by past events, then so do elementary particles
I find the definition of free will as "actions are not determined by past events" satisfactory and am perfectly happy (and unsurprised) that this definition turns out to apply to everything, not just humans (or just mammals, or just animals, or just living organisms, or ...)
BoardMonkey wrote:
I wonder what the the difference between a singularity and a zero point is? I'm not convinced singularities exist. We don't understand the math. Couldn't it just be a bunch of Planck scale stuff packed together and then when the pressure is too great it just explodes into a new universe? Greene says this has been disproven. But it seems so intuitive to me.
A singularity is a magical event and it would be defined exactly the same. That is, an event which will not be repeated and hence isn't characterised as scientifically explicable.
That's not a definition but something of an explanation. Since I fully accept the existence of "magic", meaning something that invloves some kind of power that science may never learn how to explain, a singularity is by comparison with that a very rare event indeed, since it literally means "unique event". I'm sure the Big Bang didn't happen. That is, the event signifying the beginning of the universe and called "The Big Bang" wouldn't be a Big Bang or a cataclysmic expansion of nothing into the universe. The maths never worked and more and more theoreticians are rejecting it. I rejected it in 1970.
Sep 20, 2023
0
#2068
Singularity is not a meaningful scientific concept because it is an inaccessible extreme. Science is limited to the finitely small, just like it is limited to the finitely big and the finitely long (in time). It's because the scientific method does not permit investigations of the extremes that mathematics does. By contrast it has a a precise meaning in several branches of mathematics.
To be clear, you can have a singularity in a mathematical model used in physics. What you can't do is prove a singularity is required. This would require something like infinite energy probes.
This probably never becomes an issue because the existence of the scale of quantum gravity (due to high enough energy particles qualifying as black holes, so destroying the fabric of space time at small scales) excludes the possibility of singularities by providing a lowest meaningful physical resolution. It's like you can't have pixels below a certain size on a CRT if the beam has a given (fuzzy) width.
The beginnings of the universe can be thought of as the beginnings of a region of the universe. We don't know how large the universe is and we probably have no means of ever finding out, due to the optical horizon. Estimates are based on Big Bang maths, which we know is faulty.
The universe probably begins as very very cold (virtually absolute zero) and with a density of near zero. Gravity and the existence of space and matter do the rest. Space will have an intrisic expansion, hence the illusion of expanding from a central point, which has trapped the previous generation of cosmologists in a false paradigm. Since about 2010, more and more cosmologists have been realising that the Big Bang isn't viable.
Sep 20, 2023
0
#2070
Optimissed wrote:
The beginnings of the universe can be thought of as the beginnings of a region of the universe. We don't know how large the universe is and we probably have no means of ever finding out, due to the optical horizon. Estimates are based on Big Bang maths, which we know is faulty.
You should know you are speaking for yourself, not some broader "we". Don't misrepresent it!
The universe probably begins as very very cold (virtually absolute zero) and with a density of near zero.
😀😀😀
Gravity and the existence of space and matter do the rest.
❓❓❓
Space will have an intrisic expansion, hence the illusion of expanding from a central point, which has trapped the previous generation of cosmologists in a false paradigm. Since about 2010, more and more cosmologists have been realising that the Big Bang isn't viable.
Not more than a very small minority. The Big Bang is a reliable description of the very hot, very dense, rapidly expanding early Universe. Your description seems to aim to be maximally wrong.
Also, everyone knows it is incorrect to think of the Universe coming from a point. All we can say is that the very flat observable Universe came from a very tiny region.
Let me add an outrageous claim. We do not have an upper bound on the amount of matter in the observable Universe. The reason is that relativistic effects mean that there is more and more matter in a given volume as you approach what people incorrectly think of as a spherical edge. It is difficult to see past the distance from which the CMB arises (only neutrino and gravitational wave astronomy are possible), but the amount of matter should keep on rising towards infinity in the regions visible from earlier and earlier times via those channels.
A very simple cosmological model shows this. Suppose the Universe is truly flat like a single special relativistic frame (not a bad approximation) and assume the distribution of galaxies is regular. The we can see to 13.8 billion light years in each direction (our frame, no messing around with combining different co-moving frames). Then Lorentz contraction means that galaxies get closer and closer together (in our frame) as they get further away (if they are the same distance apart in their own frames, actually less as they get further and further away because of expansion). The net result is that there can be an infinite number of galaxies in the same direction up to 13.8 billion light years, because of the magic of Lorentz contraction.
Of course, even though this is a point of difficulty at present, we know that early enough there cannot be galaxies - certainly by the time of the CMB, when the Universe was all hot and gaseous and quite Uniform, but you still get an infinite amount of matter back to 13.8 billion light years.
This simple cosmology is easily made 3 dimensional rather than 1, and can be tweaked with dark energy, but there is no doubt the bottom line is the same - an infinite amount of matter can be technically observable (i.e. causally).
That doesn't mean there is an infinite amount of matter - the density might not be the same everywhere as here - but it makes clear to me that you don't need to look outside of the (causally) observable Universe to find the possibility of an infinite Universe.
The surprising conclusion is because of the way density rises near the Big Bang.
There is one thing that places a limit - the quantum epoch. This provides a maximum density at a red-shift that is very large but not infinite. Accepting this reasonable belief, the observable Universe can still contain stupendously more matter than the numbers derived from the number of galaxies up to some much lower redshift.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The beginnings of the universe can be thought of as the beginnings of a region of the universe. We don't know how large the universe is and we probably have no means of ever finding out, due to the optical horizon. Estimates are based on Big Bang maths, which we know is faulty.
You should know you are speaking for yourself, not some broader "we". Don't misrepresent it!
The universe probably begins as very very cold (virtually absolute zero) and with a density of near zero.
😀😀😀
Gravity and the existence of space and matter do the rest.
❓❓❓
Space will have an intrisic expansion, hence the illusion of expanding from a central point, which has trapped the previous generation of cosmologists in a false paradigm. Since about 2010, more and more cosmologists have been realising that the Big Bang isn't viable.
Not more than a very small minority. The Big Bang is a reliable description of the very hot, very dense, rapidly expanding early Universe. Your description seems to aim to be maximally wrong.
You're no more a cosmologist than I am, however, so it remains a difference of opinion where you take what may seem to be the orthodox stance. Sooner or later, someone wiil show that the Big Bang-type theories are the result of lazy thinking. They don't explain the origins of the universe, which remains a magical event, which has no scientific explanation. Merely a description of an assumption or series of assumptions.
If humanity survives and progresses, the Big Bang will be thought of as amusing, raher like the Greek or Biblical myths.
Sep 20, 2023
0
#2072
No, I don't need to be a professional cosmologist to know that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang cosmology. Lambda-CDM remains the standard model.
That is a great wiki article. So many challenges covered!
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-notable-group-of-scientists-who-do-not-accept-the-Big-Bang
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-famous-scientists-who-do-not-accept-the-Big-Bang-theory
And you can easily find dozens of similar questions, with similar answers, because that's the way it is. The Big Bang is established science, the best explanation and close to universally accepted by experts (without every detail being worked out).
Optimissed wrote:
You're no more a cosmologist than I am, however, so it remains a difference of opinion where you take what may seem to be the orthodox stance. Sooner or later, someone wiil show that the Big Bang-type theories are the result of lazy thinking. They don't explain the origins of the universe, which remains a magical event, which has no scientific explanation. Merely a description of an assumption or series of assumptions.
If humanity survives and progresses, the Big Bang will be thought of as amusing, raher like the Greek or Biblical myths.
Regardless, your conjecture about the universe "beginning" in its probable end state (and note how you cannot even come up with something creative/original for this, you steal the heat death of the universe and re-cast it) and then saying "gravity, space, and matter do the rest" seems pretty ridiculous. How does gravity do the work if the universe is already spread out too thinly for gravity to have a significant effect? And note that even though you didn't explicitly state that all the matter was spread out, it must be for your "cold cold cold" near absolute zero universe (although this statement is also ridiculous since most space, and definitely intergalactic space, is already near absolute zero) to exist, since stars (and black holes) would be forming if the matter were clumped, etc.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You're no more a cosmologist than I am, however, so it remains a difference of opinion where you take what may seem to be the orthodox stance. Sooner or later, someone wiil show that the Big Bang-type theories are the result of lazy thinking. They don't explain the origins of the universe, which remains a magical event, which has no scientific explanation. Merely a description of an assumption or series of assumptions.
If humanity survives and progresses, the Big Bang will be thought of as amusing, raher like the Greek or Biblical myths.
Regardless, your conjecture about the universe "beginning" in its probable end state (and note how you cannot even come up with something creative/original for this, you steal the heat death of the universe and re-cast it) and then saying "gravity, space, and matter do the rest" seems pretty ridiculous. How does gravity do the work if the universe is already spread out too thinly for gravity to have a significant effect? And note that even though you didn't explicitly state that all the matter was spread out, it must be for your "cold cold cold" near absolute zero universe (although this statement is also ridiculous since most space, and definitely intergalactic space, is already near absolute zero) to exist, since stars (and black holes) would be forming if the matter were clumped, etc.
Having read part of your first sentence, it seems quite clear that you're attempting to make generalised assumptions, not knowing anything about the subject I'm discussing.
I'll leave your to your deep ponderings. Just bear in mind that i don't consider it worth answering you.
Elroch wrote:
No, I don't need to be a professional cosmologist to know that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang cosmology. Lambda-CDM remains the standard model.
That is a great wiki article. So many challenges covered!
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-notable-group-of-scientists-who-do-not-accept-the-Big-Bang
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-famous-scientists-who-do-not-accept-the-Big-Bang-theory
And you can easily find dozens of similar questions, with similar answers, because that's the way it is. The Big Bang is established science, the best explanation and close to universally accepted by experts (without every detail being worked out).
I also know that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang. What does that signify?
I've also engaged quite a lot of cosmologists in discussion on this subject and I found they split neatly into two groups. There's the larger group that basically considers the BBT "the best guess we have" and they aren't going to stray. Then there are people who are actually thinking about the subject. They tend to be more open-minded and there was a high percentage who were unhappy with the BBT. I thought they roughly split 50/50 between theor who tended to accept the BBT as being likely and those who thought it was probably wrong.
Then again, it was pretty clear that some people self-describing as "cosmologists" weren't cosmologists. We have data collection, data analysis and data interpretation. Most would have been data collectors whereas only those who are data interpreters realy deserve to be thought of as cosmologists. I met a handful of obviously highly intelligent people and most of them were a lot more open-minded and sceptical than I think you expect they would have been. A significant number of them thought that the BBT wasn't going to survive. This is maybe 12 years ago and time has moved on. It's fairly clear that more people are jumping ship.
Regarding one of your comments, I'm aftraid you are incorrect to claim that the Big Bang is established science. It would have to be established science without actually being science. It's much more accurate to call it theory, because the base of all science must be empiricism. The BBT is not empirically based. It merely coincides somewhat (but unfortunately, inaccurately) with extrapolations of some observations. An extrapolation of an observation obviously isn't an observation and so the BBT is not based on empirical science.
A comment on something else. A "famous scientist" can be one of two beasts.
It can be someone who has been around for a really long time and is very well respected in the field. (I hope it means "famous cosmologists" because a famous scientist might be a food scientist who knows nothing of cosmology but happens to have an opinion on it.) Such a person isn't ncessarily prepared to change horses when the far bank is so near. The old horse brought him this far and it will serve. Secondly, it could be a famous science populariser, such as the charming and interesting German lady we discussed earlier, who unfortunately thinks that free will doesn't exist. Clearly she isn't thinking that because, according to her, thoughts don't originate in our minds but are put there and we have no choice in holding those thoughts. Can we still justify them? Well, perhaps but perhaps not. It's an interesting and convoluted question in itself.
Anyway, science popularisers need to be popular. Perhaps now isn't the time for famous science popularisers to challenge the Big Bang. They're going to go for things with even less empirical grounding, like the multiverse or like free will. In conclusion, the fact that famous scientists accept the Big Bang is meaningless, in that it says nothing about the accuracy of BBT.
Optimissed wrote:
Having read part of your first sentence, it seems quite clear that you're attempting to make generalised assumptions, not knowing anything about the subject I'm discussing.
I'll leave your to your deep ponderings. Just bear in mind that i don't consider it worth answering you.
Lol. You have proven over time to be a layman and a generalist in every single subject you claim expertise in. Being a generalist is fine, in and of itself...for example, I designed systems and managed departments of developers at least partly because being a head-down programmer is so tedious...but being a generalist and then claiming to be a genius/unrecognized prodigy in every subject (like thinking you could write a better psychology book than you wife could, for example) is beyond the pale.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You're no more a cosmologist than I am, however, so it remains a difference of opinion where you take what may seem to be the orthodox stance. Sooner or later, someone wiil show that the Big Bang-type theories are the result of lazy thinking. They don't explain the origins of the universe, which remains a magical event, which has no scientific explanation. Merely a description of an assumption or series of assumptions.
If humanity survives and progresses, the Big Bang will be thought of as amusing, raher like the Greek or Biblical myths.
Actually, I'm writing this hoping that someone might read it who has the intellectual equipment to understand what I'm saying. You're proved that you don't so why don't you stop trying to dominate everything and leave room for someone who is interested in the subject?
Also, you should stick to the subject. After all, it isn't on topic to mention that you're clearly a psychopath. So I suggest that you do try to stick to topic and others will do so too.
Sep 20, 2023
0
#2079
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
No, I don't need to be a professional cosmologist to know that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang cosmology. Lambda-CDM remains the standard model.
That is a great wiki article. So many challenges covered!
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-notable-group-of-scientists-who-do-not-accept-the-Big-Bang
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-famous-scientists-who-do-not-accept-the-Big-Bang-theory
And you can easily find dozens of similar questions, with similar answers, because that's the way it is. The Big Bang is established science, the best explanation and close to universally accepted by experts (without every detail being worked out).
I also know that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang. What does that signify?
It's an overwhelming majority. The observations are not well-explained in any other way.
Have you added in blue, extensive editing to a previous post?
I simply don't accept that the likely truth will be one that a consensus accepts at the present time. The consensus believes that what we call "magic" isn't possible and doesn't exist, after all.The consensus is always going to accept what is seen to be the orthodox position, because working scientists have their jobs to consider and they are not going to take positions which seem unorthodox if they need credibility when they do really want to challenge something. So really there is no-one. There's no leading cosmologist who is even capable of thinking for him/herself in such a way as to be able to think about the big picture. My son claims that cosmology attracts people whose ability may not be quite up to par in fields where it can be more readily tested.
😂 lol and WOULD LOVE to bust you in an armwrestle
Is that where you would feel more adequate competing with me?
ff vs dd? reminded me of 0xdeadbeef
I just find it funny that Optimissed and this guy are the only two that seem to want things to get physical. Pro tip...if you are disagreeing with someone and you want to cause them physical harm or beat them in some physical contest instead of debating the points...it means you are losing.
Hello Dio, hope you're doing alright.
No idea at all what you're talking about. You've never beaten me in any argument ever, more than two or three times in total when I've made an oversight. You do not have that ability. It's just part of the yarns you spin to amuse people.
All the best.
The point I made is that despite your protests to the contrary, the very act of wishing to move to the physical is your own brain's solution to its subconscious conclusion that you are losing the debate. If that here not true, then your frustrations would manifest in the form of new cogent arguments...or in your case, as "Oh yeah? Well, you are mentally disturbed!".
Ask your wife about it.