Crisis At The Edge of Physics

[Shaw]

Physics has come to a wall again because Einstein's theories all revolve around a Universe that exists where gravity was created after the Bi Bang occurred and is produced by suns, planets, black holes and other celestial bodies.

How do you explain the Universe before the Big Bang occurred when the celestial bodies that created the gravity Einstein based his theories on did not even exist?

People don't generally get gravity... I get it and can live with that. But if you don't understand, why attempt to make stuff up about it?

We live in a world where you can teach yourself this stuff for free... plus a ton of effort. The math text needed to comprehend what is being described in General Relativity are available to anyone with an internet connection. Start with Euclidean geometry, work your way into classical differential geometry, then modern differential geometry (differentiable manifolds, Riemannian geometry... specially understanding metrics) and then make sure you have a solid foundation in classical mechanics (specially Lagrangian mechanics), and before you know it, you are ready to read and understand what Einstein gave us a century ago. And all this is available to everyone (when I was growing up, you needed access to a University library for this level of information).

Either put in the effort or move onto something you're willing to invest effort in. There is no short cut, and no matter how many times I've tried to explain this stuff to people, I've found that without that foundation what seems really straight forward to me isn't to other people.

Most physicists don't really understand because they took a short cut (a one or two semester course on General Relativity) and what they actually learn was how to solve equations. Sadly, being able to solve equations isn't the same as understanding what is actually happening.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Most physicists don't really understand because they took a short cut (a one or two semester course on General Relativity) and what they actually learn was how to solve equations. Sadly, being able to solve equations isn't the same as understanding what is actually happening.

This is my experience as well. I have a robust understanding on how treat general relativity problems. As for actually understanding modern general relativity... well, yeah. I can't really claim that.

 

[publiusr]

Not all that much of a fan of Kaku--after the Cassini hysteria he fomented

 

[sojourner]

Kaku was always missing the point on his "science of science fiction" show.

 

[Dryson]

Back to the same rote gibberish about 'before the big bang' and your misinformed, malformed thoughts on Einstein's work. Before the big bang is irrelevant to understanding our universe.

It's only gibberish and irrelevant because you cannot put any of Einstein's theories to the test in a Universe that exists without gravity based on suns, black holes, planets, etc.

Prior to the Big Bang is relevant because we would be understand how the Universe was created which will lead us to new questions of how the Prior to Big Bang created. All very relevant scientific based questions.

Science does not exist to simple cease and maintain theories when it is convenient for one to assume that they are all knowing like a God where any new discoveries would regulate such a mentality of being...irrelevant.

 

[sojourner]

Making random statements about gravity and "before the big bang" is not science or scientific.

 

[Ithekro]

Science also does not exist without proofs and theories. There are leaps of logic and then there is unprovable nonsense.

There is no known way to test what the Universe was like before it existed, nor is there even proof that there even was a time when the Univese didn't exist. There are growing speculation that Einstein was wrong on some things, but one of those things might be that there even was a beginning of the Universe.

No Big Bang....nothing before because it has not a beginning nor an ending. It just is. And at this point in time, we cannot prove that there ever was a time that the Universe never existed.

 

[Dryson]

Science also does not exist without proofs and theories. There are leaps of logic and then there is unprovable nonsense.

There is no known way to test what the Universe was like before it existed, nor is there even proof that there even was a time when the Univese didn't exist. There are growing speculation that Einstein was wrong on some things, but one of those things might be that there even was a beginning of the Universe.

No Big Bang....nothing before because it has not a beginning nor an ending. It just is. And at this point in time, we cannot prove that there ever was a time that the Universe never existed.

Suns collapsing into black holes, a measurable age to the Universe, all types of living things living and dying, even a rock being reduced from a 50 ton rock to a 1 pound rock would be considered living and dying due the rocks size deterioration.

Proof positive that since we come from the Universe that Universe we live in had a beginning and will have and end, otherwise humans would have just have always been.

Who knows maybe before the Big Bang the Universe was like a large singularity that for some reason collapsed in on itself and created the Big Bang. This would at least allow Einsteins theories to remain somewhat constant for your observable entertainment of course.

 

[sojourner]

Suns collapsing into black holes, a measurable age to the Universe, all types of living things living and dying, even a rock being reduced from a 50 ton rock to a 1 pound rock would be considered living and dying due the rocks size deterioration.

nope.

Proof positive that since we come from the Universe that Universe we live in had a beginning and will have and end, otherwise humans would have just have always been.

This is untrue. Why would the universe being unending have any bearing on humans having "always been"? If you are going to make absurd claims at least try to provide some cognizant arguments to support them. Otherwise, as has been recommended before, either read some more books or move to trek tech forum for your posts.They'll be much more warmly recieved there where fictional science reigns.

 

[Ithekro]

Yet a dying star that goes supernova will tend to create new stars from its remains. A rock grinds down, but if it goes molten it can be reformed with other rocks that have been ground down. Systems of renewal across the known universe. Things die and are born again.

The Universe might be the same, yet it also might not. It could expand and contract normally with a way to generate new pieces of itself as old parts of it decay.

These are thing we cannot prove due to our limited scope of observation and time. We've only been studying the Universe on this level for at most a century, and with greater fields of view for decades at best.

Give us time to learn what we can observe and give us time to detect things better and then draw conclusions based on what we can find and can observe. Not what we cannot. We cannot observe what is not the Universe at this time. So it does not help us to put forth theories on something we cannot observe in any form with any tools. So we must stay with observing the Universe until such time as we find out more of its secrets. Only then can we find out if there is anything beyond it. Either in space (the edge of the Universe), time (before the Universe) or if their are more Universes out there.

We cannot have all the answers now, nor are we expected to have all the answers. All I want is some way to make Faster than Light travel possible and allow for deep space exploration. It is a lot to ask for, but science is looking into that problem.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Proof positive that since we come from the Universe that Universe we live in had a beginning and will have and end, otherwise humans would have just have always been.

Who knows maybe before the Big Bang the Universe was like

What if time only came into existence because of the Big Bang? If that's the case then there was no "before the Big Bang".

 

[B.J.]

Proof positive that since we come from the Universe that Universe we live in had a beginning and will have and end, otherwise humans would have just have always been.

Who knows maybe before the Big Bang the Universe was like

What if time only came into existence because of the Big Bang? If that's the case then there was no "before the Big Bang".

That is pretty much what the theory says, right? Not to mention space & time are quite tangled up with each other (a.k.a. the spacetime continuum).

 

[USS Triumphant]

What if time only came into existence because of the Big Bang? If that's the case then there was no "before the Big Bang".

My (admittedly layperson's) understanding was that science has determined that time is really just a perception thing for us - that mathematically, the universe is the same backward as forward. In which case, it seems like we would perceive before the Big Bang the same as we do time now if given the opportunity to perceive it (how? ), since time is just a silly linear-beings thing, anyway.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Doesn't NASA acknowledge that time moves a hair slower for its satellites speeding through the Solar System at thousands of miles per hour? It's measurable, somehow and extremely minute, but it does exist.

 

[Ithekro]

Time dilation is a known, yes.

 

[sojourner]

Doesn't NASA acknowledge that time moves a hair slower for its satellites speeding through the Solar System at thousands of miles per hour? It's measurable, somehow and extremely minute, but it does exist.

And?

 

[2takesfrakes]

Time dilation is a known, yes.

Understood! Thank you, sir.

 

[HIjol]

Not all that much of a fan of Kaku--after the Cassini hysteria he fomented

Kaku was always missing the point on his "science of science fiction" show.

Hence my Posting...seemed appropriate for this Thread.