|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2006 : 22:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you keep asking that as if it means something. "Space" isn't defined by particles.
Then this isn't physics. We're into the realm of metaphysics Dave, plain and simple.
So are you claiming that every single cubic Planck in the universe is occupied by one or more particles? Otherwise, to talk about "empty" space is to talk "metaphysics?"quote:
quote:
What "force?"
The force of expansion Dave. How coy can we be anyway?
There is no force of expansion. How many times does that need to be said?quote:
quote:
What "particles?"
What physics?
No, which particles are you talking about having some "force" acting on them, in particular?quote:
quote:
Space expanded, and it did not do so through some force acting upon some particles.
Then in "real" terms, exactly what *is* expanding exactly?
Space, as I said.quote:
quote:
The general theory is the Big Bang theory.
That's non responsive.
No, you're just demanding that some theory other than the Big Bang be put up for examination, since the Big Bang is the explanation of expanding spacetime. You appear to be under the impression that the Big Bang theory is somehow based upon some other theory of expanding spacetime, but you'd be wrong - it is the explanation of the observed expansion of spacetime.quote:
Because everyone keeps talking about expansion and inflation and growth from a "point".
Well, the Big Bang theory does not talk about expansion and inflation from a "point." If you want to discuss the Big Bang theory, you're going to have to accept that it only deals with the universe at some non-zero size.quote:
It was evidently very physically small in size.
Yes, but not zero.quote:
Whatever size the quark soup may have been, it contained particles of mass and therefore gravity is pulling in, not out.
So what? When considered as a force, gravity is the weakest of the known ones, and it (as you know) doesn't even matter when there is no matter.quote:
Again, this is utterly non-responsive and simply false. The moment you have quark soup is the moment you have gravitational forces working against you, not helping you explain "expansion".
Who claimed that gravitational "forces" were helping to explain "expansion?" I certainly did no such thing.quote:
quote:
Because gravity holds the space together. You really do want me to explain General Relativity, don't you?
No.
Oh, good.quote:
Without mass, you have no gravity. The moment you had quark soup is the moment you had mass and the moment you had gravity sucking it all back together.
Well, the "quark soup" stage didn't come until (relatively speaking) late in the game, after the inflationary epoch. There was (relatively speaking) lots of space by then (we've got a good idea of the minimum, but no the maxmimum possible amounts).quote:
There you have it. You want to have your metaphysical cake and eat it too. You want to believe in expansion, but only some kinds of expansion, and only when and where you say so. How cute.
No, the expansion of the universe is measurable. That's the kind of expansion I'm talking about. Whatever sort of expansion you're talking about - some sort of expansion which is due to some alleged force on some alleged particles - hasn't been defined (by you), so I can't talk about it one way or another.quote:
So it's metaphysical Dave. You have a metaphysical "non-force" that's evidently really picky about what it "expands' and what it doesn't.
No, the "rules" for what expands and what doesn't are laid out in Einstein's General Relativity.quote:
It isn't a force...
And neither is gravity.quote:
...there are no particles...
No, I said that the expansion isn't due to a "force" acting on particles. There are lo |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 22:50:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In this case, gravity is going to work against any forces of "expansion".
Nobody ever said otherwise, Michael.quote:
However we attempt to explain this "expansion", it should fall within the realm of physics and particle physics and known forces of nature.
Unless, of course, our observations require the assertion of new laws of physics and new forces. Otherwise, of course, the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces would still be considered "metaphysics" since there was no hint of them until the 20th century.quote:
There is a viable way to explain this evidence without going outside of the laws of nature and without going outside of the laws of particle physics.
Go ahead and share that with us, please.quote:
If someone believes however that there is only one viable way to interpret the evidence, it becomes beholden upon them to do so in a complete way, without introducing "metaphysics" into the discussion.
Good thing that nobody is doing that here, then.quote:
And maybe the only mystery is trying to explain why some folks insist this is the only possible way to explain what happened.
No, the mystery is who you think "some folks" are.quote:
Well, that's because the observational evidence also seems to fly in the face of the BB predictions. Most of the early BB theories predicted that galaxies wouldn't form for a very long time, usually defined in billions of years.
Name one. You made the claim, nobody forced you to make that claim. Name a Big Bang theory in use today which postulates that galaxies didn't form for at least one billion years.quote:
But instead we find all sorts of surprises about the early existence of stars and iron and pulsars in the early universe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html
What's ironic about this (pun intended) is that all of these articles are based upon the idea that the Big Bang actually occured, and that there was no iron or quasars or anything else at some point in time previous to the events described.quote:
The "surprise" you'll see expressed in these articles reflects the fact that BB theory never suggested such an early formation of stars or universes.
Did any Big Bang theory ever suggest any minimum age for star or galaxy formation, or are you conflating Big Bang theory with stellar and galactic evolution theories?quote:
In fact I'm old enough to remember when the timeline of galaxy formation was put in the "billions" (plural) of years after this quark soup phase.
Prove that your memory is correct, please.quote:
Well, that is the "theory" anyway, at least for the time being. Because they never expected to see these early structures so far back in time, they now have to "assume" that these are the first generation stars. Then again, what happens if Hubble's replacement finds even more stars further back in time? They'll keep pushing back the concept until there is direct evidence that the timelines just won't work anymore.
At which point we'll get a new theory. Yay! I'm all for that!quote:
The problem here is that everyone is surprised by these findings, but no one is suggesting that the BB theory might be wrong.
Perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand where the Big Bang theory ends and other theories begin.quote:
My big beef is ultimately not that BB theory is taught in school. My beef is that this theory is the *only* theory that is taught in school. It's analogous to having one version of history taught in school. There may be validity to that theory, but there is nothing to suggest its the *only* theory we should be considering and studying at this point in time.
Define "school." If it's public grade school you're talking about, then most of the kids aren't equipped to judge one theory from another in the first place. If it's colleges and universities, then you're going to have to demonstrate that another theory is as good as Big Bang theory in terms of the predictions it makes. For example, the existence of the CMBR is necessary for Big Bang theory to be even remotely true, but I see no reason to think that a CMBR is necessary for a "Big Slam" to have happened. In other words, the existence of the CMBR is irrelevant to "Big Slam" theory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 07:29:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
In any case, I want to stick with some basics. So my real question is that if various Big Bang people made predictions about it, and then later observations were in line with those predictions, and none of them disproved them, then it starts to be a rather compelling theory, no?
Had BB history played out like that, perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with you. As it is however, the BB theory's usefulness as a predictive device has been virtually nil.
Huh? According to the information I've read, this simply isn't true. For instance, according to the Wiki article I keep citing,quote:
The Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB which is composed of photons emitted during baryogenesis. Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the temperature of the radiation and the plasma were equal until the plasma recombined. Before atoms formed, radiation was constantly absorbed and reemitted in a process called Compton scattering: the early universe was opaque to light. However, cooling due to the expansion of the universe allowed the temperature to eventually fall below 3,000 K at which point electrons and nuclei combined to form atoms and the primordial plasma turned into a neutral gas. This is known as photon decoupling. A universe with only neutral atoms allows radiation to travel largely unimpeded.
Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the radiation from this time had a blackbody spectrum and freely streamed through space until today, becoming redshifted because of the Hubble expansion. This reduces the high temperature of the blackbody spectrum. The radiation should be observable at every point in the universe to come from all directions of space.
In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while conducting a series of diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories, discovered the cosmic background radiation. Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery.
In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and determined that the CMB was isotropic to about one part in 105. During the 1990s, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based experiments and the universe was shown to be almost geometrically flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies.
It's difficult to say that the Big Bang has had virtually no "usefulness as a predictive device" in light of the above information. Do you dispute or disagree with any of this? If so, how?
quote:
quote:
You seem to be fixated on some early predictions about galaxy formations and whatnot, but does that merit overturning the whole thing?
Well, you tell me. If a theory isn't useful in any tangible way as a predictive device, and most of the predictions it makes turn out to be false, and there are other viable options to choose from, I fail to see the point of fixating on a single option. That is particularly true with an event that is so far removed in space and time.
Again, in light of the above, I'd say that you're wrong. And as Dave already noted, you seem to be conflating various theories. The early appearance of iron was not a pillar upon which the Big Bang Theory was built. (Unlike, say, red shift.) Again, we don't toss out evolution because we push back the appearance of homonids. We would have to seriously re-think evolution, of course, if conclusive evidence put early humans with dinosaurs. Similarly, if we found conclusive evidence that put iron present in the universe at 10^-35 seconds, then we'd have to re-think the Big Bang. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 07:49:29 [Permalink]
|
Michael, I feel a strong need to take exception to your sloppy use of terminology pertaining to the Big Bang theory, and this discussion.
Among other things, your insistance of the use "quark soup", especially in regards to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
While there are "several" Big Bang theories (which you have yet to show how they differ from eachother. I'm of the opinion that the differences are in details not directly related to the CMBR which is one of the mail points in this discussion), for all practical purposes they all agree on the generalised timeline presented in Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be my main reference for purpose of Big Bang discussions unless indicated otherwise by me.
The "Quark Soup" existed during the hadron epoch, which ended one second after the beginning. At that point, nucleosynthesis started to occur.
The recombination that relased the light that has become the CMBR occurred ~780 billion times later in the history of the universe.
Your continued used of terminology outside their standard definition is making our communication difficult.
You have still to acknowledge that the process that released the CMBR differs a lot between standard/general BB theory compared to the "Big Slam" as you have presented it here.
How the CMBR was released according to BB perfectly fits the collected evidence: The wavelenth of the peak, the exceptional adherence to the theoretical curve of black body radiation, the exceptionally even distribution across the sky.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is a viable way to explain this evidence without going outside of the laws of nature and without going outside of the laws of particle physics.
Then please do explain how a Big Slam can produce the extraordinary properties of the CMBR. Then you have a chance of making me "a believer" of the Slam theory instead of BB. As a skeptic, I feel compelled to choose the most probable explanation, and for now I'm leaning toward BB. Make me understand how a Slam is more reasonable.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 11:16:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So are you claiming that every single cubic Planck in the universe is occupied by one or more particles?
That's about the only way that QM will work Dave. There have to be carrier particles between the electron and the positron. Waves of carrier particles *could* expand. Nothing cannot expand.
quote:
Otherwise, to talk about "empty" space is to talk "metaphysics?"
Space isn't "empty" Dave. It's full of carrier particles including those that make gravity possible. There is not such thing as "empty" space. If there were such a thing, it could not "expand", because there would be nothing *to* expand.
quote:
There is no force of expansion. How many times does that need to be said?
You can say it a million times if you like, but then you have no way to explain the "expansion" in the first place. This is one giant excersize now in pure metaphysics. You won't admit that the "space" between the electron and the positron is full of carrier particles. You're trying to define "space" as somehow "devoid" of carrier particles, when it fact it's quite literally filled with them. I see no point in going line by line of metaphysics with you Dave, expecially not on such a beautiful day like this.
I'll respond to the rest of the relevant comments in this thread some other time. I think I'll give you all some time to let my statements about carrier particles and the nature of "space" sink in a bit. If we can't get past this point, we'll be stuck in metaphysics forever.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/01/2006 11:26:52 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 11:28:00 [Permalink]
|
| So are you saying that there is no where where there is nothing? That every single possible space is occupied? No matter how small you get? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 11:31:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
So are you saying that there is no where where there is nothing? That every single possible space is occupied? No matter how small you get?
Pretty much. That is certainly true today. The gravitons are whizzing around like crazy, as are neutrinos and whatever other "waves" and particles we know nothing about. How small is small? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/01/2006 11:32:03 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 12:04:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Pretty much. That is certainly true today. The gravitons are whizzing around like crazy, as are neutrinos and whatever other "waves" and particles we know nothing about.
But gravitons are simply postulated; there's no hard proof for them! The Wiki article has more to say, but it seems clear that asserting that space cannot be empty because its filled with (among other things) gravitons whizzing around is simply incorrect. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 12:08:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How small is small?
I don't know...I guess its turtles all the way down then. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 13:23:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That's about the only way that QM will work Dave. There have to be carrier particles between the electron and the positron.
Which carrier particles carry which forces between carrier particles, then? How do photons propagate?quote:
Waves of carrier particles *could* expand.
What is a wave of carrier particles?quote:
Nothing cannot expand.
Why not? What is there to prevent it from expanding?quote:
Space isn't "empty" Dave. It's full of carrier particles including those that make gravity possible.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to General Relativity, wherein gravity isn't a force but just the shape of spacetime, and all gravitational attraction is inertial.quote:
There is not such thing as "empty" space.
How is it possible that there are particles in every cubic Planck? Once a "carrier particle" leaves an electron headed towards a proton, how does the next one know to wait just long enough to keep space "full"?quote:
If there were such a thing, it could not "expand", because there would be nothing *to* expand.
What is to prevent nothing from expanding? How would the nothing be held together?quote:
quote:
There is no force of expansion. How many times does that need to be said?
You can say it a million times if you like, but then you have no way to explain the "expansion" in the first place.
No, you've simply rejected, without any explanation, the field which caused it (not a force, a field).quote:
This is one giant excersize now in pure metaphysics. You won't admit that the "space" between the electron and the positron is full of carrier particles.
As far as I can tell, QM doesn't posit an infinite number of carrier particles, especially since such particles carry quantized forces, anyway.quote:
You're trying to define "space" as somehow "devoid" of carrier particles...
No, I'm trying to define "spacetime" as that which those carrier particles move through, but you won't address that at all.quote:
...when it fact it's quite literally filled with them.
Which is, from my understanding, both false and irrelevant to a definition of "spacetime."quote:
I see no point in going line by line of metaphysics with you Dave, expecially not on such a beautiful day like this.
Since I haven't said anything metaphysical in this thread, while you've got "carrier particles" all the way down, go have a nice day. Pity the Shuttle launch got scrubbed, my son was looking forward to it.quote:
I think I'll give you all some time to let my statements about carrier particles and the nature of "space" sink in a bit. If we can't get past this point, we'll be stuck in metaphysics forever.
Just answer the question, Michael: what do "carrier particles" move through? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 15:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There have to be carrier particles between the electron and the positron. Waves of carrier particles *could* expand. Nothing cannot expand.
Are you talking about the virtual pair of particle/anti-particle in Vacuum fluctuations? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 12:59:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In this case, gravity is going to work against any forces of "expansion".
Nobody ever said otherwise, Michael.
I don't know how to have a reasonable discussion with you when you change positions like this and fail to acknoweldge it.
Here's our converstion from the previous page.
quote:
quote:
I'm afraid gravity is working againt you in a big way.
Yes, be afraid, because you're wrong.
Now which is it Dave?
And by the way, are the coronal loops hotter or cooler than the darker regions of the corona?
If I can't get straight up answers on some basic issues here Dave, it's tough to where to go next.
While you're at it, you can explain to me how "nothing" expands exactly, and how that *isn't* metaphysics? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/03/2006 13:00:27 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 13:37:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In this case, gravity is going to work against any forces of "expansion".
Nobody ever said otherwise, Michael.
I don't know how to have a reasonable discussion with you when you change positions like this and fail to acknoweldge it.
Here's our converstion from the previous page.
quote:
quote:
I'm afraid gravity is working againt you in a big way.
Yes, be afraid, because you're wrong.
Now which is it Dave?
Michael, no one fails to acknowledge that friction on a car's tires works to hinder its acceleration. However, the statement "I'm afraid friction is working against a car's ability to accelerate in a big way" would still be incorrect.
Perhaps if you cut all the needless hyperbole and exaggeration out of your proclamations, then people would be able to agree with you more often.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/03/2006 13:42:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 13:57:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I don't know how to have a reasonable discussion with you when you change positions like this and fail to acknoweldge it.
I haven't, as H. explained. If you say, "gravity is working against expansion," I'll answer, "yeah, so?" If you say "gravity is working against expansion in a big way," I'll answer, "not enough to stop it." Heck, Michael, you even admitted that gravity wasn't a part of the equation during the inflationary epoch and for the first umpty-ump years of expansion by agreeing that with no mass in the universe, gravity didn't count.quote:
If I can't get straight up answers on some basic issues here Dave, it's tough to where to go next.
Indeed, I'm just trying to get an answer to the question, "what do carrier particles move through," and failing completely. I mean, you're not even being inconsistent on that issue, Michael, you're just being silent.quote:
While you're at it, you can explain to me how "nothing" expands exactly...
Did I say that nothing expands? If so, I misspoke. Spacetime expands. If you're defining spacetime as "nothing," that's interesting, but then how do carrier particles move through "nothing?"quote:
...and how that *isn't* metaphysics?
Well, I know what I think of when I use the term "metaphysics," but what do you mean by that term, Michael? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 14:41:36 [Permalink]
|
| I was the one saying that "nothing" is expanding. Clearly that is at least partially a misconception on my side. But spacetime is not the kind of stretched out rubber-sheet that is used in analogies and visualisations of spacetime. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
