How did we get here?

rush1169 said:

Your's and other's answer does make a difference in this discussion. If you believe the 'stuff' is infinitely existing or at one time didn't exist and now does gives participants a 'reference point', so to speak, in this discussion of "How did we get here?"

Click to expand...

I accept what the experts say.

LifeToTheFullest! said:

I was not aware Krauss had been debunked many times now. Who has debunked him, and could you provide a link?

Click to expand...

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Click to expand...

How much more debunking would you like?

Michael said:

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How much more debunking would you like?

Click to expand...

Looks like god can create a rock so big he can't move.

LifeToTheFullest! said:

I accept what the experts say.

Click to expand...

What expert? Krauss? Pffft.

If you believed the "experts", how about all the experts that wrote the *laws* of physics? How about that small fact about energy cannot be created or destroyed? You're just going to ignore the laws of physics? Which part of Krauss's equations deal with the release and use of energy over time and explain how that energy use over time is also offset by gravity?

LifeToTheFullest! said:

Looks like god can create a rock so big he can't move.

Click to expand...

Huh? I simply pointed out to you that Krauss violated the laws of physics to start his 'religion'. I fail to see how your response addressed that point.

Gracchus said:

Even in "empty" space particles pop into and out of existence.

Click to expand...

No they do not. Preexisting waves of energy simply traverse the vacuum and they interact at times. Nothing "pops into existence", nor does it pop out of existence". Energy interacts in the vacuum, but nothing is created or destroyed.

But these extremely short-lived particles make up most of the mass of the universe. Most of the mass of subatomic particles is not quarks and gluons but a quantum foam of extremely short lived, extremely small particles, that form what we call "empty" space. So there is no "nothing", and there can be no "nothing". "Nothing" does not exist.

Click to expand...

That's true. Something exists, even in empty space. That something that exists today has always existed in some form of energy or another. That's what the laws of physics insists.

Michael said:

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How much more debunking would you like?

Click to expand...

Ghost stories are debunked. Science is falsified. You have not falsified what Krauss is saying.

"... a Higgs field validates the notion that seemingly empty space may contain the seeds of our existence. This idea is at the heart of one of the boldest predictions of cosmology, called inflation. This posits that a similar type of background field was established in the earliest moments of the big bang, causing a microscopic region to expand by more than 85 orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second, after which the energy contained in otherwise empty space was converted into all the matter and radiation we see today! Alan Guth, the originator of the theory, called it “the ultimate free lunch.”"

How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of our Creation

Michael said:

No they do not. Preexisting waves of energy simply traverse the vacuum and they interact at times. Nothing "pops into existence", nor does it pop out of existence". Energy interacts in the vacuum, but nothing is created or destroyed.

Click to expand...

You may insist on talking snakes and flat Earth but this is nothing compared to your lack of understanding of rudimentary cosmology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

I think I maybe should point out that there is a difference in 'vacuum' and 'nothing'.

Edit: Watching the video now.
Edit: Hmm... Only three geometical systems, open, spherical or flat... I thought there were more. Interesting.
Edit: Ok, due to general relativity
Edit: Ok, now I understand a bit of how they concluded the dark matter.
Edit: Quantum fluctuations can produce the universe...
Edit: Whooo! Triangles
Edit: So the conclusion he presents, of a flat universe, is based upon computer simulations. Cool
Edit: Cosmic natural selection
Edit: "The humility that we don't understand everything." I like that.
Edit: "General relativity unfortunately give people the wrong idea about science."
Edit: Mathematics is the language of nature, yay!
Edit: He even covers the agrument about impossibility in odds.

All in all, a rewarding video it really made me interested in mathematics again (summer breaks notoriously dulls interests).

Michael said:

What expert? Krauss? Pffft.

If you believed the "experts", how about all the experts that wrote the *laws* of physics? How about that small fact about energy cannot be created or destroyed? You're just going to ignore the laws of physics? Which part of Krauss's equations deal with the release and use of energy over time and explain how that energy use over time is also offset by gravity?

Click to expand...

Dr. Krauss is not aware of this. Perhaps you should publish your findings?

Davian said:

Ghost stories are debunked. Science is falsified. You have not falsified what Krauss is saying.

"... a Higgs field validates the notion that seemingly empty space may contain the seeds of our existence. This idea is at the heart of one of the boldest predictions of cosmology, called inflation.

Click to expand...

What the heck does that even mean? The Higgs field isn't the only thing flying around "empty space" in QM. Not only that, inflation has *nothing whatsoever* to do with a Higgs field. It's not only the "boldest" prediction, it's the dumbest, most egotistical prediction of all time as well.

This posits that a similar type of background field was established in the earliest moments of the big bang, causing a microscopic region to expand by more than 85 orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second,

Click to expand...

Of course the said field was actually "made up" in Guth's head and has nothing to do with a Higgs Boson, or anything "real" in nature. No form of energy known to man will expand by multiple orders of magnitude and retain near constant density. It's a density defying supernatural (now dead) sky god.

after which the energy contained in otherwise empty space was converted into all the matter and radiation we see today! Alan Guth, the originator of the theory, called it “the ultimate free lunch.”"

How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of our Creation

Click to expand...

What "free lunch"? "Empty space" isn't empty so it's not a "free lunch"!

Oh man is that article annoying and is Krauss ever annoying. Inflation is a "supernatural' entity and there is nothing like it in nature.

Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe—and perhaps even before the beginning, if there was a before.

Click to expand...

What a bunch of misinformation and garbage. Not only doesn't his "explanation" do away with the "supernatural" as he claimed, it actually relies on no less than *three* of them! Inflation is certainly "supernatural" as is "dark energy" and mythical forms of invisible mass. What a stupid article. There is no "free lunch' because even *if* everything he said was asolutely true, the energy that exists in this universe today came from preexisting fields, specifically the Higg's field and the inflation field! Get real.

Krauss wouldn't last two days in a real debate on this forum.

LifeToTheFullest! said:

Dr. Krauss is not aware of this. Perhaps you should publish your findings?

Click to expand...

Why bother? The industry has a proven track record of ignoring what I publish.

Michael said:

Why bother? The industry has a proven track record of ignoring what I publish.

Click to expand...

So? What have you published, where and when? I'll run across the street to the university library and look it up.

Michael said:

What the heck does that even mean? <snip>

Click to expand...

That is all you needed to say.

mzungu said:

You may insist on talking snakes and flat Earth

Click to expand...

Huh? When ever did *I* insist on talking about either of those things?

but this is nothing compared to your lack of understanding of rudimentary cosmology. Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?: Scientific American

Click to expand...

Pfft. This is just another example of the fact that cosmologists know almost nothing about subatomic physics.

Davian said:

That is all you needed to say.

Click to expand...

The presence of a Higgs field and a magical inflation field precludes you from claiming any free lunch was involved. What about the energy from inflation? It doesn't count because it's "magic' or what?

Michael said:

Why bother? The industry has a proven track record of ignoring what I publish.

Click to expand...

You don't say.

Gracchus said:

So? What have you published, where and when? I'll run across the street to the university library and look it up.

Click to expand...

arXiv.org Search

Knock yourself out.

Gracchus said:

So? What have you published, where and when? I'll run across the street to the university library and look it up.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

arXiv.org Search

Knock yourself out.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

I had never heard of arXiv.org. I think it an excellent idea!

From the summaries, those are five fairly interesting articles in astrophysics, a subject that I am barely familiar with. Still, I will spend some time with them.

So, why would you say that your publications had been ignored?

Gracchus said:

So, why would you say that your publications had been ignored?

Click to expand...

Perhaps for the same reason Erich Von Daniken was ignored by the scientific community!