The Big Bang is not random

[KerrMetric]

I don't know about those patterns, but we're talking about more than just patterns. The article, which I have no hope of finding now, was suggesting that matter was being hurtled at those speeds. Which of course at the time was considered impossible, hence the question. People were running around looking for lense effect andall that; I would really like to have it explained.

No you have misunderstood. Apparent superluminal motion is an optical effect when something really fast is moving at a small angle to your line of sight.

Google "superluminal motion" and "quasars" and you'll see what I mean.

 

[wiske]

But the rocks and sand in your experiment have to overcome the gravity of the Earth, there is no such force to overcome in space.

Newton and Einstein thought differently.

The rocks would move much more easily in space under the same conditions because the Earth's gravity is not holding them in place.

And who said the galixy is spinning slowly? I would not call 250km/s slow...

You are confusing "spinning" with speed.
The Sun travels around the center of our Galaxy about once every 200 million years, which is rather slow. Moreover, objects at different distances from the center of the Milky Way, travel at different speeds and have different orbiting periods, and some travel in the opposite direction.

A web page written by a non scientist that seems to have as little understanding of the Big Bang as you is your evidence? Why not just site some tabloid in your grocery store as evidence that "Bat Boy" exists.

Well, if you compare NASA with a tabloid, and think that its workers are not competent, that's your business. Nevertheless, it is quite pedantic to insist that the Big Bang was not an explosion: Gamow called it a fireball, Penrose called it an explosion... Scientists at CERN (the world's largest research center) called it an explosion:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
And a Google search for "Big Bang" and "explosion" produces 548,000 hits.

Now have you actually read anything writen by a scientist about the Big Bang Theory? It seems that you have not. I on the other hand have read works by scientists and even talked to a few about things like this. So why should I believe you over them?

Nothing but ad hominem attacks.

 

[wiske]

actually, randomness can create order.
google genetic algorithms or the game of life or Thomas Ray's tierra for example examples of exactly how.

Genetic algorithms (from Wikipedia):
"The evolution starts from a population of completely random individuals and happens in generations. In each generation, the fitness of the whole population is evaluated, multiple individuals are stochastically selected from the current population (based on their fitness), modified (mutated or recombined) to form a new population, which becomes current in the next iteration of the algorithm."

In other words, it is a guided, directed process that creates order here. It cannot be compared with atheistic evolution, where natural selection is supposed to occur undirected.

In general, genetic algorithms, neural networks, and the like, are very costly methods to obtain information from data (as they require large amounts of senseless number crunching).


Game of Life:
Only the initial input can be chosen freely; aftert that, it follows strict mathematical rules by which subsequent generations are calculated. No random processes here. Moreover, "life" usually dies out after a few generations.

Tierra:
Looks like a fancy set of computer viruses.
If it is undirected, it will never produce anything of interest; if it is directed, it doesn't simulate evolution.

 

[wiske]

"In a universe of finite entropy, some scientists have proposed that a random fluctuation could trigger inflation. This, however, would require the molecules of the universe to fluctuate from a high-entropy state into one of low entropy — a statistical long shot."

Exactly.

Bekenstein and Hawking have shown that the entropy of a black hole is extremely high, incomparably higher than anything under "normal" circumstances. A similar high entropy applies to the singularity of the Big Bang. Yet we observe in the Universe a remarkably low entropy. Based upon these two facts, Penrose has calculated the volume of the phase space which corresponds to universes similar to our own, compared to the total phase space. This volume is equal to
1/10^(10^123) of the total volume.
This means that God, when choosing the initial conditions of the Big Bang, selected this incredibly small volume of phase space. Or, if the Big Bang were a random process, the chance that a universe similar or identical to our own would be selected (i.e. one where stars, planets and life can possibly exist), is 1 in 10^(10^123).
In order to write this number in normal decimal notation, we would have to write a 1 followed by 10^123 zero's; in comparison the number of baryons estimated to be present in the Universe is only 10^80, a much much smaller quantity; thus, even if we had at our disposal all the matter in the universe, we would be unable to write this number.

I disagree with it because that random process of starting a bang has possibility of near zero.

You are absolutely right. See above.

 

[wiske]

But in your exampse the rocks have to overcome the gravity of the Earth, a force working to keep them still. There is no such force to keep the stars from moving. Even a body as small as the Earth can cause the sun to wobble in space.

The Earth causes the Sun to wobble in space? LOL. Could you please quantify this "wobble", given that the Earth's mean distance from the Sun is 149.5 million km, its orbital eccentricity is 0.0167, and the Sun's mass is equal to 333,432 Earth masses?

You also seem to not have studied the Big Bang Theory much either, otherwise you would have never called it an explosion.

Let's call it a fireball, then, like one of the Fathers of the Big Bang theory did.

Your examples are lacking, you display ignorance of even the basics of the Big Bang theory, you provide no evidence that your conclusion is correct. Again, why should I believe a word you say about things you seem to have no grasp of?

In what way exactly is he displaying ignorance of even the basics of Big Bang theory?

 

[KerrMetric]

The Earth causes the Sun to wobble in space? LOL. Could you please quantify this "wobble", given that the Earth's mean distance from the Sun is 149.5 million km, its orbital eccentricity is 0.0167, and the Sun's mass is equal to 333,432 Earth masses?

Newtons 3rd Law. The Sun wobbles slightly due to all the planets. The biggest effect is from Jupiter. This causes the sun to wobble at about 10metres per second. The Earth effect is only a few centimetres a second on the Sun. I think the Earth effect is a wobble of a couple hundred miles on the Sun in amplitude whereas Jupiter causes a wobble of about 50,000 miles, even this is well within the body of the Sun itself.

Let's call it a fireball, then, like one of the Fathers of the Big Bang theory did. In what way exactly is he displaying ignorance of even the basics of Big Bang theory?

The word "explosion" is used in a colloquial sense. If you read actual scientific research papers it is never called an explosion but an expansion of spacetime.

 

[KerrMetric]

Exactly.

Bekenstein and Hawking have shown that the entropy of a black hole is extremely high, incomparably higher than anything under "normal" circumstances. A similar high entropy applies to the singularity of the Big Bang. Yet we observe in the Universe a remarkably low entropy. Based upon these two facts, Penrose has calculated the volume of the phase space which corresponds to universes similar to our own, compared to the total phase space. This volume is equal to
1/10^(10^123) of the total volume.
This means that God, when choosing the initial conditions of the Big Bang, selected this incredibly small volume of phase space. Or, if the Big Bang were a random process, the chance that a universe similar or identical to our own would be selected (i.e. one where stars, planets and life can possibly exist), is 1 in 10^(10^123).
In order to write this number in normal decimal notation, we would have to write a 1 followed by 10^123 zero's; in comparison the number of baryons estimated to be present in the Universe is only 10^80, a much much smaller quantity; thus, even if we had at our disposal all the matter in the universe, we would be unable to write this number.



You are absolutely right. See above.

These probability calculations are useless whether you are a theist or atheist.

The only probability you can truly state is that the probability of the Universe is 1, certainty - we know it does exist. You cannot really talk about any other number since that implies you know the distribution of required parameters to make a Universe and then sample from them

 

[justified]

Now I know why I decided to leave this field.

No you have misunderstood. Apparent superluminal motion is an optical effect when something really fast is moving at a small angle to your line of sight.

Thank you for the explanation. I did look it up and see what you mean. But this wasn't the 1970s when I read this; it was long after scientists had accounted for the phenomenon. Nor was the object being observed supposedly quasar jets. It was some other phenomenon. Oh well.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

the order in the galaxy is created by the force of gravity.

 

[shernren]

Exactly.

Bekenstein and Hawking have shown that the entropy of a black hole is extremely high, incomparably higher than anything under "normal" circumstances. A similar high entropy applies to the singularity of the Big Bang. Yet we observe in the Universe a remarkably low entropy. Based upon these two facts, Penrose has calculated the volume of the phase space which corresponds to universes similar to our own, compared to the total phase space. This volume is equal to
1/10^(10^123) of the total volume.
This means that God, when choosing the initial conditions of the Big Bang, selected this incredibly small volume of phase space. Or, if the Big Bang were a random process, the chance that a universe similar or identical to our own would be selected (i.e. one where stars, planets and life can possibly exist), is 1 in 10^(10^123).
In order to write this number in normal decimal notation, we would have to write a 1 followed by 10^123 zero's; in comparison the number of baryons estimated to be present in the Universe is only 10^80, a much much smaller quantity; thus, even if we had at our disposal all the matter in the universe, we would be unable to write this number.

What does this prove? The fact that it has a non-zero probability shows that it could have happened. Guess what the probability is of matter spontaneously appearing from vacuum? Very, very, very, very small. Yet the possibility is non-zero and so vacuum fluctuations happen all the time.

Newton and Einstein thought differently.

How so?

In other words, it is a guided, directed process that creates order here. It cannot be compared with atheistic evolution, where natural selection is supposed to occur undirected.

Natural selection is "directed" by environmental selection for relative fitness. Also, this is not a problem for theistic evolution.

Thank you for the explanation. I did look it up and see what you mean. But this wasn't the 1970s when I read this; it was long after scientists had accounted for the phenomenon. Nor was the object being observed supposedly quasar jets. It was some other phenomenon. Oh well.

Hope you can remember, then we'll really have some interesting discussion. ;-D

 

[wiske]

These probability calculations are useless whether you are a theist or atheist.

Penrose's calculations show that our Universe is very special, so special that it could not have come into existence as a product of chance. The problem this causes for atheistic scientists, doesn't go away by saying that the calculations are useless, wrong or nonsense; in fact they are willing to invent a "multiverse", consisting of an infinity of universes, in order to make our Universe probable. That they are violating Ockham's razor in the most extreme way ever witnessed, doesn't bother them, apparently, as long as their invention can explain away the anthropic principle.

 

[shernren]

Penrose's calculations show that our Universe is very special, so special that it could not have come into existence as a product of chance. The problem this causes for atheistic scientists, doesn't go away by saying that the calculations are useless, wrong or nonsense; in fact they are willing to invent a "multiverse", consisting of an infinity of universes, in order to make our Universe probable. That they are violating Ockham's razor in the most extreme way ever witnessed, doesn't bother them, apparently, as long as their invention can explain away the anthropic principle.

They do not explain away the anthropic principle. They invented the anthropic principle. As for Ockham's razor, some will deem it a simpler theory that each and every universe has an equal and finite chance of existing and indeed do, than to imagine that a particular universe is favourable because it can develop life (which raises theoretical questions about why not any of the other universes that can develop life?). Not that I am in favour of the anthropic principle, but I hope you'll be aware that there is a reason people believe it.

It's like looking at winning the lottery. Let's say there are a million numbers for the lottery. You wake up one day and shock! AWE! your neighbor's gardener has just bought the winning number and earned US$3.3 trillion! What are his chances? Literally one in a million. So which conclusion do you derive?

a) The lottery company knows him and chose his number. Otherwise, how could someone with a one in a million chance possibly win it?
b) Summing up the probabilities over all the other 999,999 people who bought the lottery, there is a total and exact probability of 1 that someone would get it. It is only when you indiscriminately shrink the sample space that you think it's impossible.

You might say that one in a million is still big compared to the chances for our universe forming and supporting life. Well, firstly, the principle above is qualitative and the actual number doesn't matter. But supposing you still aren't convinced ... there's always the sample set of all possible chess games. I haven't worked on it but I'm sure there are a lot more than a million possible chess games. And out of those, how many have back-rank mates? I'm sure a negligible portion - yet among amateur players back-rank mates happen all the time.

 

[KerrMetric]

Penrose's calculations show that our Universe is very special, so special that it could not have come into existence as a product of chance. The problem this causes for atheistic scientists, doesn't go away by saying that the calculations are useless, wrong or nonsense; in fact they are willing to invent a "multiverse", consisting of an infinity of universes, in order to make our Universe probable. That they are violating Ockham's razor in the most extreme way ever witnessed, doesn't bother them, apparently, as long as their invention can explain away the anthropic principle.

You are misunderstanding what such calculations are saying. My point is that they are useless for inferring what you are saying. And Penrose doesn't infer what you do from them either.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Penrose's calculations show that our Universe is very special, so special that it could not have come into existence as a product of chance. The problem this causes for atheistic scientists, doesn't go away by saying that the calculations are useless, wrong or nonsense; in fact they are willing to invent a "multiverse", consisting of an infinity of universes, in order to make our Universe probable. That they are violating Ockham's razor in the most extreme way ever witnessed, doesn't bother them, apparently, as long as their invention can explain away the anthropic principle.

You can't make statistical arguments when you know nothing about the probabilities involved. We don't know anything about the probability of our universe being the way it is. For all we know, for some yet unknown reason this may be the only universe possible.

 

[wiske]

You are misunderstanding what such calculations are saying. My point is that they are useless for inferring what you are saying. And Penrose doesn't infer what you do from them either.

Really? Did you read: Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind?
If so, what do you think Penrose does infer from his calculations? If you don't understand the text, what do you think about Figure 7.19, where he depicts God pointing with a needle at a small volume of phase space? How does what Penrose wrote differ from my almost literal rendering in post #44?

If someone repeatedly tells me that I am misunderstanding something, without explaining why I am misunderstanding it, I will interpret this either as a personal insult or as a sign that the other person is not in a position to have a conversation about it.

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

i was taught by a sceince teacher that the Big Bang Theory was an unexplained explosion of matter caused by a mysteriuos force of some sort, i never ecncountered any randomness in it but then agian we didnt go into complete depth

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

in fact they are willing to invent a "multiverse", consisting of an infinity of universes, in order to make our Universe probable. That they are violating Ockham's razor in the most extreme way ever witnessed,

As it happens I think the early insistance on the anthropic principal suggests a certain amount of desparation on the side of some atheistic cosmologists but ...
What you wrote above simply is incorrect, the multiverse has its origins 80 years ago, long before the question of how "special" the universe is came up. At the time the Copenhagen interpretation won out, but only (AFAIK) at the philosophical level, not for any particular evidential reason.
Last I saw, about two years ago, the evidence for at least one theory of how a multiverse would manifest itself was negative.
I must confess to not having read the article in any detail, it was a particle physics experiement that didn't turn out. But I wouldn't get too excited about that, it is very early in game.
Anybody know if there are theories outlining a finite number of universes?

 

[shernren]

As it happens I think the early insistance on the anthropic principal suggests a certain amount of desparation on the side of some atheistic cosmologists but ...
What you wrote above simply is incorrect, the multiverse has its origins 80 years ago, long before the question of how "special" the universe is came up. At the time the Copenhagen interpretation won out, but only (AFAIK) at the philosophical level, not for any particular evidential reason.
Last I saw, about two years ago, the evidence for at least one theory of how a multiverse would manifest itself was negative.
I must confess to not having read the article in any detail, it was a particle physics experiement that didn't turn out. But I wouldn't get too excited about that, it is very early in game.
Anybody know if there are theories outlining a finite number of universes?

AFAIK: the Many-Universes interpretation of Bell's Theorem states that the universe divides into two (to put it crudely) at every time a measurement is made. This is a refutation of the "definiteness" of the problem in Bell's Theorem and the EPR experiments that proves that there is no "counterfactual definiteness" if there is no superluminal communication.

The multiverse idea: I'm not really sure how that came about but it is more sci-fi and more related to the anthropic principle and to the fine-tuning problem than to the Many-Universe interpretation.

I thought the Copenhagen Interpretation was an agreement that quantum physics is only prescriptive and does not claim to represent the physical processes that actually cause the rules prescribed?

 

[wiske]

What you wrote above simply is incorrect, the multiverse has its origins 80 years ago, long before the question of how "special" the universe is came up.

While the word "multiverse" may be older than 80 years, it is quite strange - in fact utterly impossible - that it's scientific theory was developed before the Big Bang theory.

At the time the Copenhagen interpretation won out, but only (AFAIK) at the philosophical level, not for any particular evidential reason.

The "Copenhagen interpretation" refers to the early development of quantum physics, when Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others published their papers on QM in the mid-1920s; in particular it refers to the following paper:

N. Bohr, H.A. Kramers and J.C. Slater: The quantum theory of radiation. Phil. Mag. 47, p. 785, dated January 1924.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is most certainly not a cosmological theory, let alone a multiverse theory!

 

[shernren]

Ahh, go read up the issues yourself. Come back when you have a useful conclusion. I don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse