StringJunky Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) Resistance to New Ideas Resistance to new ideas seems to be an enduring human characteristic, and scientists ... I would guess budding Galileos that come to this site say that or allude to that about once a week... They don't know what they don't know and anything seems possible when you don't know as much as those that do know. Edited November 15, 2016 by StringJunky
Mordred Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) Its amazing that people that quote famous people. Don't follow in their footsteps. Where is your math? these famous people knew and used math. Including Galileo. He also looked for evidence long before he made known his discoveries. Not make his claims first then looked for evidence. Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred
Quantum321 Posted November 15, 2016 Author Posted November 15, 2016 "Not make his claims first then looked for evidence." No they make assumptions first. They run these assumptions by their colleagues. And I am sure there were those who (like people here) told them their ideas were crazy. Ok guys, I'm tired of this banter. Its not productive. I am waiting for proof that time began with the BB and that it flows with our man. It's the prevailing theory so it should not be difficult to find.
Strange Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 Ah. Lets take J.J. Thompson for example. Before he discovered the electron in 1897 and before his paper was published, what did he do. He collaborated with colleagues about his ideas. That's where I am. He understood the current state of physics and the results of experiments that had been done she far. He did his own experiments. He worked with others. I see no evidence that you have done any of those things. "Not make his claims first then looked for evidence." No they make assumptions first. They run these assumptions by their colleagues. And I am sure there were those who (like people here) told them their ideas were crazy. Nonsense. That is not how science (or scientists) work. I am waiting for proof that time began with the BB and that it flows with our man. It's the prevailing theory so it should not be difficult to find. There is no evidence that time began with the big bang (that is not what the prevailing theory says). And there is no proof of anything in science. So you will have a long wait. So it seems like you at the level of JJ Thomson when he was at school and had heard of a few interesting scientific ideas but didn't yet understand any of them.
Quantum321 Posted November 15, 2016 Author Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) So the current accepted premise that time exists at all is not proven. It's an assumption that's not based in scientific fact. I am glad we finally agree. As far as I know time dilation has no application in quantum theory. Could this be part of the incompatibility of GR and GT? Edited November 15, 2016 by Quantum321 -1
Strange Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 So the current accepted premise that time exists at all is not proven. It's an assumption that's not based in scientific fact. I am glad we finally agree. What!? Where do you get that from? Time is a fundamental part of nearly all physics from classical dynamics to quantum theory to general relativity. There are some (currently speculative) theoretical ideas that space and time might be emergent phenomena, but there is no evidence supporting any of these yet. (As far as I know, they all treat time and space similarly: if time is an emergent phenomenon then so is space.) There might be a philosophical debate about the nature or existence of time. And if that interests you, you should join one of the many ongoing threads in the Philosophy section of the forum. As far as I know time dilation has no application in quantum theory. Combining special relativity with quantum mechanics was one of the great achievements in physics in the 20th century. It also unifies electricity and magnetism. Could this be part of the incompatibility of GR and GT? Not as far as I know. The main problem is that GR must be continuous and quantum theory must be quantised.
swansont Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 I propose atomic processes slow down in a gravitational field. You use time to explain that. I suggest there is an interaction between the strong and weak force in atoms which radiate electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are effected by gravity. This interaction somehow slows the processes. This isn't philosophy it's a possible undiscovered atomic process. What evidence do you have that non-electromagnetic interactions will radiate electromagnetically? How strong does this interaction need to be, and how weak must it be to be thus far undetected/undiscovered? So the current accepted premise that time exists at all is not proven. It's an assumption that's not based in scientific fact. I am glad we finally agree. In the sense that nothing is proven in science, yes. But you can't extrapolate that to say that it's not based in fact. As far as I know time dilation has no application in quantum theory. Could this be part of the incompatibility of GR and GT? As far as you know. Well, then, perhaps you should investigate further. Relativistic corrections are important for atomic structure for heavier elements, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics
Mordred Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) In QM an equation isn't complete until you apply relativity corrections lol. Quantum your making a lot of baseless assertions. Honestly bud you should really sit back and study the basics first. Ask questions but don't make assertions. This thread will be more productive if your asking instead of falsely asserting Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred
Quantum321 Posted November 15, 2016 Author Posted November 15, 2016 Resident Expert said "In QM an equation isn't complete until you apply relativity corrections lol. Quantum your making a lot of baseless assertions" What the heck? Don't put words in my mouth my foot left no room. I never said that! I found a very interest article entitled "A crisis at the edge of physics" written in June of last year I think everyone would enjoy. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0
swansont Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 Resident Expert said "In QM an equation isn't complete until you apply relativity corrections lol. Quantum your making a lot of baseless assertions" What the heck? Don't put words in my mouth my foot left no room. I don't see where Mordred quoted or even paraphrased you. There was an observation that you are making baseless assertions. That's a valid observation.
Quantum321 Posted November 15, 2016 Author Posted November 15, 2016 Baseless assertions are what scientists do when they adopt the assumed fact that time began at the BB
Strange Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 Baseless assertions are what scientists do when they adopt the assumed fact that time began at the BB There is no such assumed fact, so that is just a silly straw man fallacy.
Quantum321 Posted November 15, 2016 Author Posted November 15, 2016 You own statement "There is no evidence that time began with the big bang" So if it also can't be proven then it must be assumed.
Strange Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 You own statement "There is no evidence that time began with the big bang" So if it also can't be proven then it must be assumed. Why must it be assumed? Why are you assuming that time began with the big bang, when there is no evidence for such an idea?
Quantum321 Posted November 15, 2016 Author Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) No the scientific community is assuming time began with the BB. I am not. I am saying its a baseless assertion. If you think it isn't please tell me what it is Edited November 15, 2016 by Quantum321
Strange Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 No the scientific community is assuming time began with the BB. No it is not. Just to be absolutely explicit (as you don't appear to know what the big bang model is about), the big bang model describes the (ongoing) evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about the universe being created. It says nothing about time starting (which is a pretty meaningless concept anyway). Perhaps you need to learn some basic concepts before trying to come up with your own.
Mordred Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) No the scientific community is assuming time began with the BB. I am not. I am saying its a baseless assertion. If you think it isn't please tell me what it is Maybe you should read "time before time" https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408111&ved=0ahUKEwiiuY_G4avQAhUKyWMKHXWwBbUQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEAMlxtQFxQLl2b3S42gYPjn7fezw But in point of detail the BB model only starts at 10^-43 seconds. It only speculates before that. Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred
Quantum321 Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) "Just to be absolutely explicit (as you don't appear to know what the big bang model is about), the big bang model describes the (ongoing) evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about the universe being created. It says nothing about time starting (which is a pretty meaningless concept anyway)." Perhaps you need to learn some basic concepts before trying to come up with your own. That is an insulting attack. I am very versed on the BB. So you say time did not start at the BB? You are as wrong as you can be. Perhaps you care to argue with Stephen Hawking? "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang." http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html Resident Expert "But in point of detail the BB model only starts at 10^-43 seconds. It only speculates before that." I could not agree more. All the talk about two Brains colliding is also speculation. Hawking thinks time began at the BB. Do you agree ? Edited November 16, 2016 by Quantum321
Mordred Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Did you read the time before time article. Or are we just wasting time on pointless no model, no math declarations? Tell me have you found a way to get around the very definition of time? that being a rate of change? No just more baseless claims that the BB has no time. And yes Resident expert says you need more rigor in your presentation. Ie start with the basic definitions. At the very least make sure you understand the model your arguing against. Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred
Strange Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 Resident Expert "But in point of detail the BB model only starts at 10^-43 seconds. It only speculates before that." I could not agree more. All the talk about two Brains colliding is also speculation. Hawking thinks time began at the BB. Do you agree ? He is just speculating (and talking in very crude analogies). And it is "branes" colliding, not brains. And, yes, that is speculation. There is no theory that goes to "time zero" or before. The big bang model does not go back that far. I am very versed on the BB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
swansont Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 No the scientific community is assuming time began with the BB. I am not. I am saying its a baseless assertion. If you think it isn't please tell me what it is Present some evidence that this is the consensus of the scientific community, if you are going to label it thus.
Quantum321 Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) The amount of time I spend listening to small minded people is one Planck time which is 5.39 × 10-44 s At the BB particles did not move through time. They moved through space. Now for man to understand what happened we had to invoke the measure of time to allow us to understand the sequence of events as they transpired. Time did not exist and was not a requirement of the expansion of the BB. BTW I don't consider myself special in any way. You guys don't know me well enough to make any judgements. "Present some evidence that this is the consensus of the scientific community, if you are going to label it thus." I don't want to label time. The scientific community is assuming time began with the BB. I am not. I am saying its a baseless assertion. It has never been proven. I call it an assumption, what do you call it? Ah yes Branes not Brains. Edited November 16, 2016 by Quantum321
Mordred Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Move through space = change in position which is a measurable rate of change which equals time. They moved through space. Don't you see the logic circle there? Your describing a change with a measurable rate. Yet saying this doesn't equal a measure of time. Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred
Quantum321 Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 "Your describing a change with a measurable rate. Yet saying this doesn't equal a measure of time." Lets use this analogy. I push a small car across the table. It goes from point A to point B. Where is time involved? Matter moves through space whether time exists or not. Now if man want to describe this event he must use time in some of his calculations to understand the event. The universe doesn't need time for matter to move.Only to describe it.
Mordred Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) once again your describing a rate of change. Any change of any system has a rate of change. Which is equal to time. " Lets use this analogy. I push a small car across the table. It goes from point A to point B. Where is time involved? Your trying to seperate what time is defined as using descriptions that change in time perfectly describes. How long did it take for the car to get from a to b. To answer your question. How about a change in space itself such as in the case of the BB. Is that not a rate of change? You have in this case a change in volume. "What is the rate of that change in volume"? Answer me that question without using a rate of time. Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred
Recommended Posts