OcUK Science Season- How did the Universe begin?

[daz]

Esoteric martial arts, classical haunting symptoms with physical alterations, most branches of para-science or para-psychology would qualify quite well.

So none of these follow cause and effect? If you can find a way to demonstrate as such, you'll be a very famous person.

Which doesn't actually answer the question.

I personally (not knowing much about brain function, or psychology) would perform a large statistical analysis as well as things like MRI scans and the various other tests that can indicate that certain parts of the brain are active and that deal with various aspects of emotion and thought. Of course, before you even start an experiment you'd have to strictly define what "Love" is under the context of the experiment/investigation.

 

[Dolph]

So none of these follow cause and effect? If you can find a way to demonstrate as such, you'll be a very famous person.

They don't follow classical cause and effect, otherwise they would be easily predictable and manipulatable. The biggest barrier to studying haunted house phenomena is that you don't get a nice experimental idea that you can do x and y will occur, so you can measure y while setting x. Science is pretty much useless at investigating one off events that don't repeat, or repeat sporadically and unpredictably.

I personally (not knowing much about brain function, or psychology) would perform a large statistical analysis as well as things like MRI scans and the various other tests that can indicate that certain parts of the brain are active and that deal with various aspects of emotion and thought. Of course, before you even start an experiment you'd have to strictly define what "Love" is under the context of the experiment/investigation.

So are you absolutely convinced that we are only the sum of our parts?

 

[daz]

So are you absolutely convinced that we are only the sum of our parts?

I don't like to rule anything out, but I haven't experienced anything thus far in my life to tell me otherwise.

 

[V4NT0M]

On what basis do you make that statement?

Because firstly I refuse to believe that at one point the entirety of the universe was one big blob of timeless space and matter before which there was... What? Big bang theory only tells us how our observable spacetime "Universe" came into being, it is not the "theory of everything".

Not to mention there is no way you can tell me that time before the big bang does not exist because there is no observable evidence of anything before the big bang as all space time as we percieve it began at the big bang.

For example is it not possible that before the big bang there was a universe as we see it now that was collapsing rather than expanding and coalesced into one point in space meaning that all matter in the "Universe" the resulting spacetime event surely would create the exact conditions which caused the big bang. At this point (as the big bang theory dictates) spacetime as we know it would breakdown, how could we observe, prove or verify anything that happened before such an event where spacetime as we know it did not exist, what observable evidence would there be?

Now you could (as spacetime as we know it collapsed) imagine that the time before the big bang could not actually exist before or after our current "Universe" but instead is a totally different spacetime "universe", that does not exist before, after or even in parallel to our own spacetime but rather in a state which is as yet unimaginable as a seperate spacetime event.

 

[Minto]

I'd like to apologise if i'm a bit off-topic in places here, i'm trying to answer the original post and rebut dolph at the same time

That depends on the context you are working in. From a scientific viewpoint, you're absolutely correct, but looking at everything from a purely scientific viewpoint isn't the best plan ever. It also doesn't cover the possibility that the simplest mechanism might not be the correct one, if they both have equal predictive power, the scientific method will always choose one over the other on assumption.

This isn't really true. The interpretations of quantum mechanics are one example where there are several answers as to 'how', and all are equally correct, and all persists in use (Though the copenhagen interpretation is quite dominant as it is simple in many situations). The question a scientist should ask isn't "which one is right?" it is "which one allows me to most easily understand this situation?"

Surely that depends what you want to do? If you want to predict behaviour, then the simplest is fine. If you want to claim some sort of understanding, then simple prediction is not fine. It's one of the reasons why science can't tackle the god question, for example.

If a working theory explains everything observed then why should it not also indicate the mechanism occuring? Surely an unobserved event which contradicts the laws does not yet exist, 'quantum-ly' speaking, and so the explanation which we are using is merely one of a superposition of possible explanations which at some later time, collapses, decoheres, or splits into a multiverse, altering how we interpret the phenomenon.

What about if you want to study things that don't follow a classic cause/effect idea that would allow you to establish a predictive pattern? (This is the crux of the 'before the big bang' idea)

No, that isn't the crux of 'before the big bang'. Let me quote a short section from a recent paper I submitted on time's arrow and the special low entropy state at the start of the universe;

Though it may initially seem tempting to use the expansion of the universe to assign a direction to time, the potential for re-collapse means that a more robust arrow is drawn from the thermodynamic properties of the evolving universe, effectively uniting the cosmological and thermodynamic arrows. Though we have established that the thermodynamic arrow is caused by the initial low entropy of the universe, there are several conflicting cosmological theories as to why such a state was formed.

---fig2 removed---
|Fig. 2: Gravitationally bound systems exhibit clumping as their entropy in-
| creases, where a gas with no such forces will evolve in the opposite
| manner.

Modern cosmology has arrived at two basic evolutionary routes which ac-
count for the low initial entropy; either the universe was created in some special, low entropy state, or that from the initial randomness of the universe a dynamical process caused, at least in our observable region, the low entropy we measure. Many contemporary cosmologists argue that the theory of inflation, normally used to explain cosmic geometry and symmetry, can result in such a selection of low entropy regions from a random universe. It has been suggested, however, that the selection of an unlikely region in some initial universe for which inflation will produce the expected results is equivalent to invoking the anthropic principle, and that such a selection would be dwarfed in chance by regions which already resemble our current observable universe. This view has been countered to the satisfaction of some, however the revised theory requires inflation in both time directions to be equally probable.
From controversial statements that there can be no cosmological constant in an inflationary universe, to the baby universes of string theory inheriting an arrow of time from their parent multiverse, recent papers have suggested a plethora of new possibilities which will stimulate research into the cosmological arrow for some time to come.

Inflation is the key to what happened before the big bang, and the selection of a low entropy region in some original (possibly infinite in space and time) universe to form the observable universe by virtue of the fact that it is only such a region that would undergo the inflationary process which flattened our space geometry and spread the matter into an initial low entropy state.
The fundemental requirement for life (as we understand life to be) is a source of low entropy.


Interpretation is key is science, especially this kind of physics, but the really important thing is that which interpretation you use should be dicatated by the situation, not by which is 'true', as they are all true.

 

[Visage]

Because firstly I refuse to believe that at one point the entirety of the universe was one big blob of timeless space and matter before which there was... What? Big bang theory only tells us how our observable spacetime "Universe" came into being, it is not the "theory of everything".

Well thankfully science relies on a little more than belief.....

Not to mention there is no way you can tell me that time before the big bang does not exist because there is no observable evidence of anything before the big bang as all space time as we percieve it began at the big bang.

No. Time and space, by definition, started at the big bang. There was no 'before'.

For example is it not possible that before the big bang there was a universe as we see it now that was collapsing rather than expanding and coalesced into one point in space meaning that all matter in the "Universe" the resulting spacetime event surely would create the exact conditions which caused the big bang. At this point (as the big bang theory dictates) spacetime as we know it would breakdown, how could we observe, prove or verify anything that happened before such an event where spacetime as we know it did not exist, what observable evidence would there be?

None. But given that science is *only* concerned with observable evidence then it does not concern itself with the 'before', regardless of whether it did or did not exist.

Now you could (as spacetime as we know it collapsed) imagine that the time before the big bang could not actually exist before or after our current "Universe" but instead is a totally different spacetime "universe", that does not exist before, after or even in parallel to our own spacetime but rather in a state which is as yet unimaginable as a seperate spacetime event.

Indeed. But as such a universe would have no observable consequences for our own then science doesnt seek to investigate or explain it.

 

[Dolph]

I'd like to apologise if i'm a bit off-topic in places here, i'm trying to answer the original post and rebut dolph at the same time

This isn't really true. The interpretations of quantum mechanics are one example where there are several answers as to 'how', and all are equally correct, and all persists in use (Though the copenhagen interpretation is quite dominant as it is simple in many situations). The question a scientist should ask isn't "which one is right?" it is "which one allows me to most easily understand this situation?"

Hence the 'equal predictive power' part. If, in a given situation, two theories or interpretations are not equally predictively accurate, then you choose the more accurate one. That's not really a rebuttal of the point made.

If a working theory explains everything observed then why should it not also indicate the mechanism occuring? Surely an unobserved event which contradicts the laws does not yet exist, 'quantum-ly' speaking, and so the explanation which we are using is merely one of a superposition of possible explanations which at some later time, collapses, decoheres, or splits into a multiverse, altering how we interpret the phenomenon.

There's nothing wrong with indictating the predicted or percieved mechanism, especially as it will help with understanding the method by which the results were obtained.

That doesn't make the mechanism correct though, which is the mistake many people are making these days.

No, that isn't the crux of 'before the big bang'. Let me quote a short section from a recent paper I submitted on time's arrow and the special low entropy state at the start of the universe;

Inflation is the key to what happened before the big bang, and the selection of a low entropy region in some original (possibly infinite in space and time) universe to form the observable universe by virtue of the fact that it is only such a region that would undergo the inflationary process which flattened our space geometry and spread the matter into an initial low entropy state.
The fundemental requirement for life (as we understand life to be) is a source of low entropy.

Surely though the above is just an untestable hypothesis, there is absolutely no way this can be tested, and no way it can be given a classical cause/effect relationship in any meaningful way? Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly interesting, but it's also wholely unprovable.

Interpretation is key is science, especially this kind of physics, but the really important thing is that which interpretation you use should be dicatated by the situation, not by which is 'true', as they are all true.

Agreed to a point, but when people start generalising scientific ideas out of the scientific context, it starts to matter quite a lot as some people are regularly presenting things as being true.

 

[Minto]

Not to mention there is no way you can tell me that time before the big bang does not exist because there is no observable evidence of anything before the big bang as all space time as we percieve it began at the big bang.

Is time, as Newton would have it, like a cosmic ruler, inimitable, stretching forwards and backwards in perpetuity imposing a rigid ticking to etetrnity and beyond?

In a classic argument with Newton, Leibnitz proposed time as a relation between events. Time only exists as a percieved ordering of things. This relational, or relative viewpoint, implies that when there are no further events in the past with which to compare the moment in question, said moment can be considered to be the beginning, and there was no time before it.

Why should time be an eternal flow rather than a notebook of the order of what has been? Why should we force time to be a coordinate?

 

[Inquisitor]

But the only way to 'know' that a theory is 'correct' is beacuse it a) has predictive accuracy and b) it conforms with pre-existing results - which as I stated, is true for both theorys.

Well I was responding to your asking 'why should we care which is correct?' My point was that it'd be nice to know which is correct, for the reason I gave in my post.

 

[Visage]

Well I was responding to your asking 'why should we care which is correct?' My point was that it'd be nice to know which is correct, for the reason I gave in my post.

I agree that from an intellectual curiosty standpoint it would be nice to know what the 'real' answer is.

But such a notion implies that such an answer exists....

 

[Minto]

Hence the 'equal predictive power' part. If, in a given situation, two theories or interpretations are not equally predictively accurate, then you choose the more accurate one. That's not really a rebuttal of the point made.

My statement did not imply that one interpretation was more accurate, merely that different interpretations can be easier to understand in certain circumstances. All will give the experimental answer.

There's nothing wrong with indictating the predicted or percieved mechanism, especially as it will help with understanding the method by which the results were obtained.

That doesn't make the mechanism correct though, which is the mistake many people are making these days.

That isn't really what I said though, you've answered you own previous view, not my suggestion that until proved otherwise all possible explanations exist and are true.

Surely though the above is just an untestable hypothesis, there is absolutely no way this can be tested, and no way it can be given a classical cause/effect relationship in any meaningful way? Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly interesting, but it's also wholely unprovable.

That is true. Simulations show it could work, but there is no testable prediction yet. Still, we can certainly state that we cannot rule out the existance of something, possibly the universe - just notour observable region as we measure it's extent today-, before the big bang

Agreed to a point, but when people start generalising scientific ideas out of the scientific context, it starts to matter quite a lot as some people are regularly presenting things as being true.

I don't really understand what you mean there. It doesn't seem relevant.
I'm probably going to leave it at that for this discussion, as I can see this going in circles, though feel free to reply yourself

 

[Minto]

I agree that from an intellectual curiosty standpoint it would be nice to know what the 'real' answer is.

But such a notion implies that such an answer exists....

THIS is my point. There is no such answer. All are equally 'real'.

 

[V4NT0M]

Well thankfully science relies on a little more than belief.....

Science is all about belief, understanding begins with theory which is then proven, without belief in the theory nobody would ever strive to prove them.

No. Time and space, by definition, started at the big bang. There was no 'before'.

None. But given that science is *only* concerned with observable evidence then it does not concern itself with the 'before', regardless of whether it did or did not exist.

But there are limits to what 'science' can currently observe, in the same way that at some point the scientific community believed that the world was flat because at that point that's what the observable evidence pointed to.

Indeed. But as such a universe would have no observable consequences for our own then science doesnt seek to investigate or explain it.

Something does not have to have an observable effect for one to come to a conclusion that it exists. To imagine that the whole of everything (including outside our observable universe) is only what we can observe is ludicrous.

The word Universe is open to discussion, as it can pertain to our universe or to "everything". Our local universe is not all there is or ever was. It will be proven at some point, it's just not possible to do so now.

 

[Visage]

Science is all about belief, understanding begins with theory which is then proven, without belief in the theory nobody would ever strive to prove them.

But there are limits to what 'science' can currently observe, in the same way that at some point the scientific community believed that the world was flat because at that point that's what the observable evidence pointed to.

Something does not have to have an observable effect for one to come to a conclusion that it exists. To imagine that the whole of everything (including outside our observable universe) is only what we can observe is ludicrous.

The word Universe is open to discussion, as it can pertain to our universe or to "everything". Our local universe is not all there is or ever was. It will be proven at some point, it's just not possible to do so now.

If one cannot observe something (such as previous universes prior to the most recent big bang) then they can have no consequences for the current universe and thus, quite rightly should be excluded from scientific models.

 

[daz]

But there are limits to what 'science' can currently observe, in the same way that at some point the scientific community believed that the world was flat because at that point that's what the observable evidence pointed to.

If you actually research this, you'll find that nobody learned ever said the world was flat within the last 2000 years. Sailors for example have known for ages about the curvature of the earth.

 

[uber soldat]

My mum told me God did it. Is she lying?

Yes

 

[V4NT0M]

If you actually research this, you'll find that nobody learned ever said the world was flat within the last 2000 years. Sailors for example have known for ages about the curvature of the earth.

I'm glad that human civilization is older than 2000 years.

 

[KNiVES]

The universe began like this;



*KABOOOOOOOOOOOM*



Whooosh whooosh whoosh whoosh whooooooosh

*kaboom*

And there you have it. Just think of the sounds your parents made in the middle of the night when you were younger, accompanied with lots of comic dust and stuff colliding.

 

[daz]

I'm glad that human civilization is older than 2000 years.

You mentioned "scientific community", not civilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

I guess it depends on your definition of when science really came into being. Either way, it's a common misconception that up until columbus people thought the world was flat.

 

[LordSplodge]

Sure we know what happened nano/pico/plank seconds after the big bang, but what happened before or at the time of the big bang, eh?

That may be a question we are not ready to answer - yet.