Big Bang

[Wiccan_Child]

Hope it doesn't seem like I'm bickering, but I really would like to know. How do you measure time from the start of something, and still say that there wasn't necessarily a start?

Good question. It's analogous to calculating when abiogenesis occurred, and working out just how close to that event we can model - that is, we can adequately explain how organisms behave a billion years after abiogenesis, but not after only one year.

Likewise, we can work out how long ago the singularity existed, and we can work out how long it would take that singularity to expand and cool until it settles down into 'regular' physics.

QM and GR, as good as they are, ultimately rest upon foundational assumptions that might very well not be true. At the incredible densities found 13.5 billion years ago, the errors in these theories become apparent. That is, at low energies, QM and GR are very good at predicting behaviour. But at very high energies, they're less accurate, due to fundamental errors in how QM and GR model reality.

So. We have the singularity at t = 0 (for argument's sake). At t = 10[sup]-43[/sup], the singularity has expanded and cooled to sufficiently low levels that QM and GR can begin to make accurate predictions - forces behave normally, particles stabilise and form orbits and shells, etc (this wouldn't happen until later, but you get my jist).

So this moment in time (t = 10[sup]-43[/sup] s), which occurred around 13.5 billion years ago, is effectively how long it would take the singularity to expand and cool to be able to be modelled accurately.

Hopefully that makes sense

 

[Chesterton]

Hopefully that makes sense.

It's as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer (during a thunderstorm) .

So. We have the singularity at t = 0 (for argument's sake). At t = 10[sup]-43[/sup], the singularity has expanded...

Okay, if t = 0 is posited for the sake of argument, doesn't that have to mean that t = 10[sup]-43[/sup] also exists merely for the sake of argument?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, if t = 0 is posited for the sake of argument, doesn't that have to mean that t = 10[sup]-43[/sup] also exists merely for the sake of argument?

Indeed. If the universe is actually a trillion years (10[sup]17[/sup] s) older than 13.5 billion years, then the moment I called "t = 10[sup]-43[/sup]" is actually 10[sup]-43[/sup] + 10[sup]17[/sup] s after the dawn of the universe.

So the value of 10[sup]-43[/sup] is the length of time between the singularity and the universe being cool enough to model using current theories. It's simply convenient to say this is 10[sup]-43[/sup] s 'after the Big Bang'. It's not technically, scientifically accurate, but it gets the point across.

 

[jonmichael818]

How is the time measured then? 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds from what?

Its called the Planck epoch, we know that our current theories of physics breaks down at this time. Its also refferred to as the plack scale or planck length where are theories break down.

If quantum effects are ignored, the universe starts from a singularity with an infinite density. This conclusion could change when quantum gravity is taken into account.-Wikipedia/Planck Epoch

 

[Doveaman]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

How can anyone believe in the Big Bang?

You make up a whole bunch of hypotheticals, you then calculate a whole set of mathematical equations made to custom fit the hypotheticals, and you call it a scientific theory.

I call it scientific nonsense, which only the most gullible students are led to believe.

The fact of the matter is Big Bang is not a theory, it's a modern day myth based on make-belief ideas such as inflation (100% imaginary), dark-matter (100% imaginary) and dark-energy (100% imaginary), none of which has been or can be scientifically verified since they all lack any kind of supporting evidence and are purely hypothetical.

There is more evidence of Elvis being alive than there is for these three Big Bang gods of the gaps being alive.

Here, I even have a photo of Elvis:

If not, what is your theory?

God did it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Iggy the magic elf did it.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Iggy the magic elf did it.

Hey, I think I know this guy.

 

[KCfromNC]

God did it.

She did it last Thursday, specifically.

 

[1611AV]

How can anyone believe in the Big Bang?

You make up a whole bunch of hypotheticals, you then calculate a whole set of mathematical equations made to custom fit the hypotheticals, and you call it a scientific theory.

I call it scientific nonsense, which only the most gullible students are led to believe.

The fact of the matter is Big Bang is not a theory, it's a modern day myth based on make-belief ideas such as inflation (100% imaginary), dark-matter (100% imaginary) and dark-energy (100% imaginary), none of which has been or can be scientifically verified since they all lack any kind of supporting evidence and are purely hypothetical.

There is more evidence of Elvis being alive than there is for these three Big Bang gods of the gaps being alive.

Here, I even have a photo of Elvis:

God did it.

Good post. Lots of sound, basic, undisputed facts.

Interesting when you mention God did it, the mockery follows. Yet they blindly believe in dark matter, energy, ect...

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed. If the universe is actually a trillion years (10[sup]17[/sup] s) older than 13.5 billion years, then the moment I called "t = 10[sup]-43[/sup]" is actually 10[sup]-43[/sup] + 10[sup]17[/sup] s after the dawn of the universe.

So the value of 10[sup]-43[/sup] is the length of time between the singularity and the universe being cool enough to model using current theories. It's simply convenient to say this is 10[sup]-43[/sup] s 'after the Big Bang'. It's not technically, scientifically accurate, but it gets the point across.

If the laws of physics haven't "kicked in", if you can't make any accurate predictions before t = 10[sup]-43[/sup], how can you know a singularity existed before then?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the laws of physics haven't "kicked in", if you can't make any accurate predictions before t = 10[sup]-43[/sup], how can you know a singularity existed before then?

For the same reason we still use Classical Mechanics even though we know it's technically wrong. We don't know the details of that mysterious epoch, but we know enough to calculate the length of it.

 

[Chesterton]

For the same reason we still use Classical Mechanics even though we know it's technically wrong. We don't know the details of that mysterious epoch, but we know enough to calculate the length of it.

I can't measure the length of a stick, if I can't know where the beginning (one end) of the stick is. How do you guys do it?

 

[sandwiches]

I can't measure the length of a stick, if I can't know where the beginning (one end) of the stick is. How do you guys do it?

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. However, it seems to me that the logical way is to move things backward in time. Since we can see that the universe is expanding, we just start moving things the opposite direction, and eventually, they converge. Now our current understanding can only take us so far into that convergence and we might never know what lies beyond that point but, as far as my understanding goes, that's how they can approximate how long ago the Big Bang was.

 

[Chesterton]

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. However, it seems to me that the logical way is to move things backward in time. Since we can see that the universe is expanding, we just start moving things the opposite direction, and eventually, they converge. Now our current understanding can only take us so far into that convergence and we might never know what lies beyond that point but, as far as my understanding goes, that's how they can approximate how long ago the Big Bang was.

But the Planck Era describes movement forward in time from a starting point 0. Seems to me the starting point 0 must be either demonstrated by the physics, or logically implied by the physics. I'm not understanding how it can be an idea posited for the sake of argument, while the time period it's based upon is actually evidenced.

 

[Lillen]

May i ask AV1611VET... are you a program?

 

[sandwiches]

But the Planck Era describes movement forward in time from a starting point 0. Seems to me the starting point 0 must be either demonstrated by the physics, or logically implied by the physics. I'm not understanding how it can be an idea posited for the sake of argument, while the time period it's based upon is actually evidenced.

Again, if we look at things going back in time, because we know their vector and change thereof, we can estimate when they were all together. However, if we actually try to model the universe past a specific point, we can't.

 

[jonmichael818]

But the Planck Era describes movement forward in time from a starting point 0. Seems to me the starting point 0 must be either demonstrated by the physics, or logically implied by the physics. I'm not understanding how it can be an idea posited for the sake of argument, while the time period it's based upon is actually evidenced.

It is demonstrated and implied by using incomplete physics that breaks down at the quantum level. Until we have a theory (quantum theory of gravity) that can tell us what takes place at the planck scale, we can only speculate what takes place using our current incomplete understanding of physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

May i ask AV1611VET... are you a program?

Yes

I am the Automatic Viewpoint 1611 Viewpoint Espousal Technology program, designed to inform, entertain and broaden the horizons of biological cogitation units, while simultaneously recording and responding to verbal feedback, emotional or intellectual.

 

[Doveaman]

Good post. Lots of sound, basic, undisputed facts.

Interesting when you mention God did it, the mockery follows. Yet they blindly believe in dark matter, energy, ect...

Yep. It would seem they give more honor to the gods of big bang theory than to the God of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. It would seem they give more honor to the gods of big bang theory than to the God of creation.

No one asked my opinion, but I think most scientists today are ... shall we say ... 'influenced' ... by a group of specific demons called 'the Muses'.