Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

[MikeH]

You said science treats conciousness as an irrelevant phenomenon. There's loads of research into stuff like that.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker

Science requires empirical evidence, whereas theology requires NO evidence, only "faith".

Not exactly. There is still the formal, metaphysical evidence left for God.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
What is Omega?

Simply, a measure of the curvature of space.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Re: Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I don't know about the questioning the Big Bang I think there is more than enough 'hard' evidence that it is the source of all observable effects in existance. i.e Whether the universe is oscillating or not is irrelevent as the two scenarios are indistinguishable as all information is lost from one cycle to the next.

That would depend on the size at the smallest point of the oscillation - as long as it is slightly below the Planck scale, it would leave remnants. The Big Bang itself is not the progenator of all these effects - the expansion of the universe is. That is quite different!

I'd rather question specifics about the Big Bang, I don't like the bit about rampant inflation explaining isotropy for example. It just doesn't feel right to me.

I agree - I dislike inflation too.

And I want a better excuse for Omega equalling exactly 1, we don't know that it does but I think it will turn out to be so - to be flat is aesthetic in my mind, but I want an equally aesthetic pre-cursor to explain it.

This is a good example of 'fiath' in science. There is really no evidence or reason for having Omega=1, it is just 'nice'. (In fact there is evidence for it not being 1.) But most cosmologists believe it to be so., and then speculate at length about what the 'dark matter' may be. (I do too.)

[Whaleboy]

I don't believe in it, and there are other explanations that account for the evidence, but the BB seems to be the most plausible. If a better comes along, I will accept but I have no unswerving belief in it. The only religious aspect of cosmology is the sheer beauty, nothing more.

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Re: Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


That would depend on the size at the smallest point of the oscillation - as long as it is slightly below the Planck scale, it would leave remnants. The Big Bang itself is not the progenator of all these effects - the expansion of the universe is. That is quite different!

What is the difference? Does the Big Bang theory mean the theory of the universe's conception in your mind? To me the 'Big Bang' refers to the concept of the universe expanding from a miniscule point, not to the progeny of the universe. You can believe in a Big Bang and in an cyclic universe, or at least in my mind you can.

This is a good example of 'fiath' in science. There is really no evidence or reason for having Omega=1, it is just 'nice'. (In fact there is evidence for it not being 1.) But most cosmologists believe it to be so., and then speculate at length about what the 'dark matter' may be. (I do too.)

Cosmology has so many competing theories* that when I look at them the only way I can decide on the one I believe is by the feel of them**. I admit its a type of faith, but if evidence is presented to show misplaced faith then I would be happy to choose a new theory.

* I say competing theories, they're more a plethora of possible boundary conditions and starting variables based on a single theory. If the universe is oscillatory they could conceivably all be true at one stage or another.

** I've always liked physics over mathematics because it has always been intuative to me. I have a philosophical question that should probably have its own thread - what makes and a theory aesthetic, and why are accredited theories aesthetic?.

[debeest]

I see no evidence whatsoever for the general notion that the universe was created or is directed by some sort of conscious entity. Semi-comprehensible tracts handed down to us from people who were hopelessly ignorant (through no fault of their own) don't count as evidence to me. Religions that posit a godding force are a complete mystery to me because they consist of belief without any evidence.

Scientific evidence generally has the virtue of being observable, measurable, and consistently repeatable. It exists in the physical world outside of people's minds, so that even those who expect not to see it must acknowledge it. People may differ in interpreting it, but a scientific viewpoint allows the evidence itself to be accepted even by those who differ as to interpretation.

I feel certain that you will want to argue that my description of scientific evidence applies fairly well to theological "evidence" as well. I may as well state my disagreement now.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by debeest
I feel certain that you will want to argue that my description of scientific evidence applies fairly well to theological "evidence" as well. I may as well state my disagreement now.

Not at all. Indeed, since you are so happy with your 'scientific understanding' of the Big Bang, perhaps you would like to explain it to me. I would be very interested.

[Dauphin]

RJ, you in Edinburgh for the foreseeable future or just temporarily?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
RJ, you in Edinburgh for the foreseeable future or just temporarily?

That depends. I only have a 'temporary' 6-year contract here, but it is special funding from the government (basically so I don't have to teach, and can just focus on research) so I am allowed to take it wherever I like (in the UK). If a good university offers me a good deal (like a permanent contract to start when my gov funding stops, with reduced teaching duties) I would go. I had wondered about moving back to Oxford....

[niDe]

Re: Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

yes. it sounds better than other terms.
like god.
and "what happens when like HEAPS of dust spins REALLY REALLY fast like and gets all hot (so take off all your clothes) and then like explodes into planets and all that other space stuff"

ah huh says the man with the green hat.

[Skanky Burns]

Lay off the green hats, niDe. They will be the death of you.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by debeest


I don't think that most physicists would agree on that last point, though I'm sure many would. But I think most physicists would agree that Steven Hawking is among the few most important modern physicists, and not because the media focus on him more than they should. He may not be a supergenius, but he's added more to modern physical thinking than most.

well, I have not ran into one of his theories in my classes

I have, however, ran into theories developed\partially developed by people who are here in Maryland

like Greenberg down the hall

JM

[GePap]

Last I had read, matter and antimatter were NOT created in equal amounts, but instead matter was created in slightly large amounts, and what we see is the matter that was left after most matter and anti-matter annahilated themselves.

[Jon Miller]

that is the theory they are looking for

a few of dudes down the hall are doing research right now trying to come up with a working theory

JM