Big bang and infinite space
- Thread starter PurpleBuddha
- Start date
The theories that I was willing to work with in cosmology were the ones that weren't willing to get too far ahead of themselves (and the data). Good theoretical physics is done by creating a model that fits existing data and points to where new data might be found. If the data is there or not, you end up with more data to either strengthen or rework the original model.
Recently many of the theories (and not just in cosmology) being put forward are based more on people having too much time on their hands. They have created elaborate theories which only barely touch actual data and provide no direction for finding collaborative data.
When you get that far out away from real data, you've jumped into either theology, philosophy or mathematics (or some combination of those), but you've left physics behind.
I knew that what I was doing was something similar to this, but then again, I was willing to call what I was doing what it was... mathematics.
Recently many of the theories (and not just in cosmology) being put forward are based more on people having too much time on their hands. They have created elaborate theories which only barely touch actual data and provide no direction for finding collaborative data.
When you get that far out away from real data, you've jumped into either theology, philosophy or mathematics (or some combination of those), but you've left physics behind.
I knew that what I was doing was something similar to this, but then again, I was willing to call what I was doing what it was... mathematics.
^ Maybe. But then again there are always ideas floating around long before they be can be called a proper theory or rejected as disproven. And these ideas seems to get the most press because of the human need for sensationalism. I think things have worked this way for a long time.
The question is: Is the universe open or closed?
Deterministic = Non Deterministic?
STR,
Looking at that it would appear that P = NP
Lindley,
Okay so if P = NP does that make the universe open or closed? If P does not equal NP, does that make the universe open or closed?
And why
Looking at that it would appear that P = NP
Lindley,
Okay so if P = NP does that make the universe open or closed? If P does not equal NP, does that make the universe open or closed?
And why
A quick wiki check tells me that even if you do know the problem you are unlikely to solve it.
Actually, the fact that most of the people in this thread get their info from Wikipedia is why any attempt to provide substantive answers is a wasted effort (above and beyond the fact that a post in a forum is a bad method of communicating such answers to begin with).
Plus the major issue with discussing this type of thing is that there are a lot of people who can't see beyond euclidean space. If you say that space is curved or has a shape, they immediately see that as being in some higher euclidean space. It is an irrational crutch that keeps any discussion of this topic trivial and... sadly, pointless.
I've made attempts in the past, and they weren't worth the effort. In the end, if one is really interested in knowing the answers, one will go to school (and avoid Wikipedia).
Well, besides the fact that error correction in a wiki environment is an up hill battle, far too often people walk away from a wiki page thinking they know something. Even worse is if they don't even stop to read the page and just copy-paste the contents or a link as an answer to something.
For example, I could tell people around here that having an understanding of differential geometry is vital to comprehending this subject. And a lot of the readers of this thread will run to Wikipedia for that (here is the link for you guys). They might look at the page, some might even try to read the page and then believe they know something about the subject.
Here is the thing, if that was all there was to learning this subject, why did I take a year of undergraduate courses and three years of graduate courses to gain (what I considered) a reasonable understanding of it? It references a number of the text books I used (including one written by one of my professors), but the page on the whole would be meaningless without a lot of additional background, and what is there truly isn't enough for real understanding.
But people use it these days as a substitute for real knowledge and real understanding. The people who really need to drop Wikipedia cold-turkey don't realize it is only an overview and not the final word.
For example, I could tell people around here that having an understanding of differential geometry is vital to comprehending this subject. And a lot of the readers of this thread will run to Wikipedia for that (here is the link for you guys). They might look at the page, some might even try to read the page and then believe they know something about the subject.
Here is the thing, if that was all there was to learning this subject, why did I take a year of undergraduate courses and three years of graduate courses to gain (what I considered) a reasonable understanding of it? It references a number of the text books I used (including one written by one of my professors), but the page on the whole would be meaningless without a lot of additional background, and what is there truly isn't enough for real understanding.
But people use it these days as a substitute for real knowledge and real understanding. The people who really need to drop Wikipedia cold-turkey don't realize it is only an overview and not the final word.
Well, besides the fact that error correction in a wiki environment is an up hill battle, far too often people walk away from a wiki page thinking they know something. Even worse is if they don't even stop to read the page and just copy-paste the contents or a link as an answer to something.
For example, I could tell people around here that having an understanding of differential geometry is vital to comprehending this subject. And a lot of the readers of this thread will run to Wikipedia for that (here is the link for you guys). They might look at the page, some might even try to read the page and then believe they know something about the subject.
Here is the thing, if that was all there was to learning this subject, why did I take a year of undergraduate courses and three years of graduate courses to gain (what I considered) a reasonable understanding of it? It references a number of the text books I used (including one written by one of my professors), but the page on the whole would be meaningless without a lot of additional background, and what is there truly isn't enough for real understanding.
But people use it these days as a substitute for real knowledge and real understanding. The people who really need to drop Wikipedia cold-turkey don't realize it is only an overview and not the final word.
It's a nice sentiment, but it's not going to happen. One could levy the same sentiment toward people who get most of their science knowledge from SciAm or Discover Magazine, or people who just took a 200 level course in a subject and think that qualifies them to an opinion, or just people who watch too much Discovery Channel.
It's not a problem of sources. If that were the case, then the only people who could rightfully register any opinion whatsoever would need to be a PhD holder with several papers to their name. Nevertheless, valuable insights can be gleaned by people with few credentials, but a considered opinion and a critical mindset.
Critical thinking and analysis are the real problem here. Wikipedia is a perfectly substantial resource if one understands how to read it instead of just blindly accepting what's on the page. A quick check on the references at the end of the article, or a further search using key terms used in the article has yielded many a promising lead without requiring a direct citation back to Wikipedia itself. It's a great resource, just not a primary one.
As for the problem of perceiving non-Euclidean geometry, one of the things I've heard from those who study such things is that it's not a readily available skill to most people. Not necessarily because of poor education or understanding. Some people just lack the mental capacity to properly visualize it (by which I'm not referring to intellect, per se, so much as spatial perception skills, which isn't necessarily a product of IQ), which isn't much of a surprise, really, since it's not really something our brains are designed to understand to begin with, the balloon analogy can only be stretched so far, and frankly, these things are really best understood mathematically than visually.
From what I understand, the problem ultimately goes back to the current impasse that exists in reconciling large scale cosmology with small scale quantum physics, which, at the instant the Big Bang occurs, are one and the same. Without that knowledge, there's a very big gap at the moment of 'creation', which leads to this situation where matter either comes from literally nowhere or an equally difficult to believe scenario involving infinite density and zero volume.
Once a proper theory of quantum gravity exists, though, we'll likely be able to sort that issue out, but until then, we're all just guessing from armchairs.
Once a proper theory of quantum gravity exists, though, we'll likely be able to sort that issue out, but until then, we're all just guessing from armchairs.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
For a theory of quantum gravity one needs to unite quantum mechanics with relativity.
And that presents a rather large problem - relativity requires infinities to work and quantum mechanics works with discrete quanta.
Didn't mean to imply it wasn't... I mean, Hawking and a lot of the physics community has spent the last generation or two trying to crack that nut with little headway...
Regardless, we know an answer exists. It has to, since, obviously, our universe exists because of the fact these two theories have a resolution. We just have to find it. Whatever the answer is, a truly Unified Theory of Everything will be THE physics discovery of the 21st century, so there will be no shortage of human effort devoted to this. it's just a matter of time.
I turn to Wiki first only about topics I know nothing about. It takes me typically a few minutes to read what is there and then I know two things. First, I know if I am interested enough to learn more, and second, I know a few areas to follow up on.
I would never post any serious opinion about anything I had only read on Wiki, which is why I admitted ignorance about the problem Lindley posted. Wiki told me this was an area beyond my current knowledge and something I am not likely to follow up on.
Also, posts like the one you made here are pretty shitty if you ask me. You say you have tried with people, but they probably gave up on you due to your snobbish attitude. I have had many discussions about physics lately with children of all people and I have been stunned at how quickly they begin to understand things when they are encouraged.
It is sad that you feel a need to resort to personal attacks. They neither add anything nor help your argument, and are generally intended to incite an emotional response by the person they are aimed at... none of which are appropriate for anything being discussed here.
I'm glad that you've spent time in the real world helping people learn about physics... I've spent a ton of my time in the real world doing the same. Neither of which are relevant here as I was discussing the short comings of this type of discussion (posts in a forum) when dealing with these issues.
Sadly, most people don't take any serious effort in posting answers... and even more are more interested in getting others to share their opinions rather than get the basics down first so that there is at least a level foundation for a discussion above and beyond the pure science.
Real answers aren't easy. And when they do come in the form of a post, a lot of work is required of both the poster and the reader. I have written extensive posts attempting to provide real answers to such questions, and started threads for people truly interested in having a deeper understanding of the things needed to comprehend aspects of a discussion of either the Big Bang or the large scale structure of space-time. Those threads don't require lofty educations to follow, but they do ask for a bit of effort.
Unfortunately, it has been my experience with people in general that people only value what is costly. When given the ability to have the equivalent knowledge of years of higher education for free, people will not apply the effort needed to assimilate that knowledge. When they are charged large amounts of money, they seem to find the determination to work their way through the same information. The same is true on a smaller scale here, with people asking questions they really have no intention of wanting answered (if any effort is required on their part).
If we were to take this outside of the forum environment, I worked with children and teachers on the subject of non-euclidean geometries. It is actually easier to introduce these ideas to a child than an adult, as children haven't become dependent on a euclidean construct yet, and can move quickly past those concepts... shedding them the same way they might training wheels on a bicycle.
Which is fine, but one would hope that we wouldn't need to hear about the fact that you went to Wikipedia for anything. After all, if you went to Wikipedia and most everyone else had as well, why post that you went there or post what you found?
Most of my post was composed before you had posted your wiki post, you weren't being targeted... you just happen to be the most recent example.
If you feel the need to lash out with more personal attacks, I understand... posting in a public forum is like everyone giving their responses to a crowded room over a loud speaker. One feels embarrassed publicly even if they shouldn't have (or wouldn't have otherwise) in such an environment. It is another example of why substantive discussions really aren't possible in a forum setting like this... at least not while people can't rise above the need to take everything personally.
Again, you may be the example of the moment, but we have all felt what you were feeling that made you feel the need to attack me. Hopefully you can rise above it in the future.
Funny. I was merely returning the favor. I guess you are right though, we aren't in grade school anymore.
It was my way of admitting ignorance on the topic Lindley in what I considered to be an attempt at dry humor. I thought that much was clear from what I said and that the mention of Wiki made it all the more obvious. Oh well.
I stand by the fact that your post was shitty. The way you insulted the intelligence of so many people came across as a bit stuck up and I called you for it. Surely you have to be a least a little aware of how stuck up you sound. Even if you weren't targeting me, I get tired of that attitude and I see it often enough in real life as well.
I think the conversation was going along just fine. Sometimes kicking around the big ideas, even if they are not a precise understanding of a given theory, is all the substance a person like me needs to make a mental break through in another area. If it is not your thing, why come in here at all?
Similar threads
