I don't really get Big Bang

[Raymond Lin]

This is how science works. We have our best guess, then something better comes along and replaces it and the old theory gets thrown in the bin.

It doesn’t undermine science, it is science!

The label we use is “we don’t know”.

You can actually argue god/intelligent creation is a hypothesis here (this is essentially what the living in a simulation idea is ultimately), though it would be quite weak as you can’t test realistically.

As I said like hours ago, you are arguing over a label.

I don’t care what you call it, you care (way too much) what I call it.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Well, I think it is important to highlight this, because words have meanings and you were one looking to understand this?

Words does have meaning, it depends how much meaning you place on it and you are giving a label way too much meaning.

You happy if I call it farts?

I don’t care what you call it, you care way too much what I call it.

Chill, I’ll start calling it Bertie if you want.

 

[Raymond Lin]

No the only thing that offends me really is narrow mindset and seemingly a refusal to accept a logical thought process to things we don't fully understand. I am actually from a religious background myself and feel I have first hand experience from both sides rather than just one, but I'll always side with what's logical and reasonable over what's fantastical. However we are here, we have the gift of being able to reason and observe and update our understanding of everything around us but it seems you have a specific way of arguing that doesn't gel with most other people.

Case in point you've been beating this same horse with countless people in this thread alone, and that's before we even recall previous threads over the years in various other topics!

Many others here have put things similarly as I've been saying since my last post here so hopefully one or more of those comments too will help you see things a bit more understandably.

Thread title is "I don't really get Big Bang" yet when people try to share some understanding with links, videos, thoughts..... No no no, that's illegal!

Lots of words, it's a label. I am open to the mindset that you can call it whatever you want.

You are too closed-minded not to let others call it whatever they want.

I am also totally open-minded to the possibility of whatever it happened before it, that is not even a question, something happened. I am just giving it a name, fart, god, bertie, my ass happened. Until someone figures it out, it will be named after that name.

Let it go, it's a label.

And where did I say it is illegal to share links? Show me, when did I say that? It would help if you can stop lying.

I am not even trying to understand big bang. (p.s. I have not watched any of the links/videos posted and have not quoted any of those people. It's all theory, all guess and all valid as each other so there is no right answer or wrong answer.)

And countless people with the same horse? it's just YOU, Jokester, and James Miller. That's not countless, that's 3.

The OP is more about the clash of laws of physics to something that breaks the laws of physics to someone who spends their life in physics. I am not trying to understand big bang, I don't know the answer (but i am also not trying to look for an answer). I just find the concept amusing, a bit like a priest who is a physicist. Hence the various labels I or everyone gives it. It's just a name, it's just a theory and all a guess.

You just can't let go that I want to say the word God, but perfectly fine if I use other nouns. Whatever i call it doesn't change what happened then. It's a name!

The OP is also meant to be light hearted, hence the Penny GIF, you are trying to turn it into something else. I suggest you be a little more open-minded and let people call something whatever they want. When you, yourself don't know the answer.

I mean if you figures it out, and it's named after you, I am happy to call it mrk.

mrk happened.

Perhaps deep down you are upset I call it god. The thing is that god has no relevance to me, because i am not religious, i don't assign god to be anything. I know the concept but god is just something. God in different cultures means different things and beings. God doesn't always translate to 1 being, 1 form, 1 deity. God in Shinto religion is the surroundings around us, the trees, the rock, the river, the mountain. in Shinto, Big Bang would be what happened as it is the elements, the surroundings, and in that religion to call god happened would be perfectly valid.

Something happened, mrk happened, god happened, whatever happened.

Labels, be more open minded.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Humans created our language correct. Science says the universe was once small and hot. That doesn't mean: "there was once nothing so therefore there is a falsehood and all of science is meaningless". Science only goes as far as it knows, after that it speculates, wildly, but until it can be tied to an observation or experiment that's all it is - speculation. When you get taught Science be it GCSE, A level, degree and beyond, they don't have chapter 1 as metaphysics, I think you are referring to philosophy, which is also cool and interesting. But it isn't science.

Exactly, speculate, wildly. Just as you said, widly.

I took a swing, a WILD swing with the word "god" (from someone who doesn't believe in god), but using god as a placeholder name. But that is an absolute no. Like No chance, Nope, get out of here, that's not science.

What happened to speculate wildly? (not that wildly!)
What happened to I just told you it's a placeholder word for something conclusive comes along? (nope, you can use any word but that word...it's not allowed!)
What happened to that i told you i don't believe in god, the deity? (Did I say that? may be like 5 times?)
What happened to me saying there is something before, and that can be anything and i am open minded to that anything? (Did I say that? may be like 7 times?)

Why be so picky about a 3 letter word when i have written hundreds?

And in the OP, i didn't actually said God created the universe, i said "akin to believing in god". People read that, and took that (MISTAKENLY) to meant God created the universe rather than Big Bang or something else. The key here is "akin to", the idea of believing 2 contradictions. It's not the same as God made the universe.

Was that not clear? I thought it was.

Although i must add, if one is to be open minded about anything can happen, why can't anything be god or the concept of an entity created the universe? If you close that avenue down then you wouldn't be open minded about the point of that "everything"? Surely if we take the concept that this is a simulation and someone, some race is advanced enough to have created this universe then that someone would technically fit a lot of culture's model version of god. Would it not?

Again, I don't believe in god...it's just a 3 letter word.

mrk happened, not god. To keep someone happy.

 

[Raymond Lin]

If we allow the concept that anything can happen, why can’t the concept be something like another race that creates the universe? If such a race fits the Christianity culture version of God (I know someone is going to be picky about that, narrow minded to that degree to pick a single one)

Why is it okay to say “such race of species” but not use the word god, if their technology is so advance that they can do things that fits what we assume god is capable of.

Yet if I name the race Bertie, it’s fine.

Just to be clear, no one can deny or disprove there can be a species that is so advance that they may have created our universe. It’s all theories.

But people have a problem of the label I give it.

Bertie the alien is fine, God the alien isn’t.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Why would we allow the concept that anything could happen? That doesn't seem sensible



Bertie the alien would be a natural being who evolved in some other space, and created the universe through some natural means. God is a supernatural being, inherently unexplainable, who created the universe through supernatural means. That's why Bertie is more plausible although, honestly, IMO, not much of an explanation for anything since it simple pushes the question back to what created the universe that Bertie lives in, and not a terrible plausible explanation anyway.

You do realise you are trying to change the name I give something, but not the function of the “something”.

Its the same being, except the name I give it. It’s like I want to call my Dog, God. It’s still a dog.

What difference is Bertie the Alien vs God the Alien, same as what difference is max the Germany Shepard vs God the German Shepard?

Labels.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Not labels, words. Words have meaning. If you want to use the word "god" but don't actually mean god, I'm simply left wondering why you are choosing to communicate poorly.

I knew you are going to say words have meaning…you are giving meaning to god, but unless you have forgotten already, I don’t believe in god, god have no meaning to me. You are giving it meaning, more than I give it.

I don’t know which times I’ve said “labels” you didn’t understand, it’s just a label. A placeholder. Just a label.

I’ve been saying for 2 days. Was that not clear?

Just a label.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You realise that this statement requires that you do, in fact, understand the meaning of the word "god", otherwise how could you not believe in it?

I understand the concept of god, but do you understand the concept of label?

I must have said it’s “just a label” about 20 times, just to be sure I did a search and it came up in 16 posts and I said it multiple times in multiple posts.

I’ve explained the concept, we have no disagreement of the concept, you just don’t want me to use the labelling.

So essentially you agree with other things but the label I give it. Again, a label. Behind the label, you agree.

And back to about 12pm yesterday, I said to Jokester you can call it whatever you want, why can’t I call it whatever I want?

And why pick on the 3 letter word when I’ve have written thousands by now.

you are still picking on this word…because you think it has meaning…it’s just a word, just a name, it has no meaning to me. God as an idea, yes, but not meaning.

But can call it Bertie or even Jack if it makes you happy. You got to understand that it’s just a label.

Btw, the sentences that you left out, I take that as you are in total agreement.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I don't think I've read the 'God of the Gaps' argument so many times in one thread, along with someone using the word 'god' describing it exactly as common parlance and the religious community use it, but denying it means that...

I also love how the OP is questioning one scientific theory descrbed by physicists, by using something else described by the SAME physicists, who apparently haven't noticed that these thigns contradict eachother, and posts it on a computer forum instead of going and doing some research. As posted above, I recommend PBS SpaceTime on Youtube for all things physics related in a comic format by people with actual PHD's in this subject who know what they're talking about.

Summary - the Universe is expanding (fact) and current estimates but the age of it at around 14 billiob years based on numerous sources of evidence. Given the confidence of this evidence, the exact age will likely be narrowed down further (especially with the James Webb telescope) but will not be suddenly found to be billions of years out. Simply put, the entire standard model of physics would have to be rewritten, and it works too well for it to be THAT wrong. We can go back to about 10^-43 seconds after the initial moment of expansion (the Plank time) but beyond there our understanding breaks down, as the conditions simply didn't allow our laws of physcis to exist, and so beyond that the answer to everything is simply "we don't know". Any claim to knowlege at this point or earlier is simply being dishonest.

The funniest part about people calling the Big Bang an explosion is that it wasn't even meant to be a serious term - the astronomenr Fred Hoyle favoured the steady state hypothesis of the universe always existing and attempted to make fun of the expansion hypothesis by calling it a 'big bang', a name which then stuck as it was proven to be accurate. The idea that there was 'nothing', and then it exploded, makes me chuckle but completely misses the entire concept. It weas simply expansion from an incredibly dense point, more than that we do not know.

Personally I like the idea of the Multiverse, where infinite universes spontaneously come into existance with random settings for the various constants that exist in ours, and most of them instantly failing due to not being stable. Some, like ours, have combinations that work and so ours exists in the condition we observe today. Absoluytely no way to prove any of it, and I doubt there ever will be, but it's a neat solution which appeals to me as a lay-person. No idea where the multiverse came from either...

I'll leave one of my favourite videos from Veritasium here, showing how we used a supernova who's light followed different and predicatable paths to prove so many of our ideas right.

I questioned one scientific theory? I thought i said they are all valid, I’m open minded to all theories. Which one did I question? Could you point me to the post where I did that please?

Every single possibility is as equal to another to me, because for the pure fact that nobody knows the answer. I put “there could be a god” right up there with that video (not watched) in terms of probability as I am open minded of all theories. Despite I don’t believe in god I am still open minded to the possibility of it.

If that’s not open minded, what is?

 

[Raymond Lin]

You aren't using the word 'theory' in the correct context. Gravity is also a theory - do you believe in that? If there is a 'god' outside of our universe we have no way of knowing, and it is of no interest. The events and scientific facts we describe INSIDE this universe are what matter, and many of those are proven beyond any doubt - these are built into the body of scientific theory. Your original post questioned the big bang because of the laws of thermodynamics, as if the 1) have anything to do with eachother, and 2) managed to slip under the radar of the entire scientific community. If you're that open minded, watch the videos and do some research to see why the theories areaccepted by mainstream science.

Be open minded, I applaud that. Just not so open that your brain falls out.

Actually, my OP wasn’t really about the Big Bang, this isn’t a topic a forum can answer. Or a video from YouTube. I was more interested in the idea of a physicist following the laws of thermodynamics and accept Big Bang together, much like the idea of a Jehovah witness practicing modern medicine. Hence the Penny Gif.

what comes before the “Big Bang” or whatever label we put on it, again, labels, are all a guess. Nobody knows. It could be mrk/jack/god! Who knows?!

but the OP is just about the idea of a physicist and the contradiction thermodynamics. Not really what was before the Big Bang. People have tried to explain but I’m not really interested honestly.

btw, what theory did I question? Could you tell me?

 

[Raymond Lin]

This part technically questons the big bang theory, becuase it doesn't describe it correctly. The theory simply states that the universe was incredibly dense and hot, possibly to the point of being a singularity, before undergoing cosmic inflation and expansion which is ongoing today. It doesn't say there was nothing, because we simply can't know that. As you say, we don't know what came before that point, or if 'before' is even a term that can be used if time came into existence as a dimension at the point of initial expansion.

There is no contradiciton between thermodynamics and the big bang theory - all the energy was there at the initial point, and it's still all here now in one form or another.

We agree that beyond that initial point, we can't know anything, and it may well stay that way for a long time, unless we can build some seriously large particle accelerators...

I wasn’t making a fact/statement that questions it, I put towards a question of an idea which contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. If that is wrong then I accept that.

 

[Raymond Lin]

What I don’t understand is how can you on one hand say “nobody knows, it’s all a guess”

and then immediately turns around and say “you are wrong, it is not that, here is a video, it must be this”.

so I guess we’ve figured it all out?

No? It’s still all a guess? I mean an educated guess, very well educated guess.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Prior to the plank time, it is all hypothesis and speculation based on our current understanding, but there's a good chance we'll never know. That doesn't make it 'guesswork' as you've described it. It could literally be a god farting the universe into existance as depicted in Family Guy, but we have no way of knowing.

AFTER that time, however, is the basis of much investigation and experiment at places like the LHC, where you can combine observational evidence with experimental and come up with answers as to what happened at the various points in our universe's history. Those parts we can investigate - parts prior to the plank time we can't. I know you haven't watched it, but that Veritasium video I posted described how scientists were able to predict a supernova appearing in a galaxy a year in advance to within an accuracy of a few months, because they'd seen it several times before with the original source being gravitationally lensed and the light taking several different paths, giving multiple images of the same galaxy but with varying times for the light to travel those paths, resulting in the image being delayed. The predicted it, and were proven correct. That is how we know the theories are correct, because evidence proves it.

Do we know everything? Of course not, but no-one is saying we do. I follow the scientific consensus because it is self-correcting, and if anything IS proven wrong then my position on it alters accordingly.

Before we move on, would you like to pick a word?

You have corrected me on the word "guess", even though you have stated "simply we don't know", you have corrected me on the use of the word "theory". Would you like to pick a word before this happens for the 3rd time? Assumptions? No? Hypothesis? You seem to like that word, you've used it a few times, lets go with that. Unless you like to do this conversation in Chinese before another person accuse me of bad at communication?

Now that's over...if you state that "we don't know", and anyone who pretends to know is being "dishonest".

Can we then just leave it at that then because we are just hypothesising.

At best, it is that based on the current evidence, this is the best hypothesis you can put forward. Yet, it is still "we don't know" for sure, as you said.

 

[Raymond Lin]

What you forgot is that it is 100% track record of failure in THIS universe. Since we are talking about before the big event, plank time, or whatever word you or anyone else want to nitpick, our laws of physics don't apply (we agree?), or that we don't know it applies 100%, then the 3 letter God word is back in the game.

If the experiments we do can only do in our universe, how do we prove something that happened or happens in another universe where other sets of natural laws or laws of physics applies.

Or may be perhaps we, this universe is inside another LHC from an alien species and we are the creation of it is another being doing the same experiement.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It's a fair point, but if we can't reason from what we find in this universe then we simply won't get an answer. Adding Bugs Bunny farting, god, and the accidental creation of the universe at a high society séance in 1876 "theories" to the mix brings us no nearer to finding out, and in fact still doesn't make god anymore likely since there are literally infinite number of possibilities out there just as silly.

Ruling avenues out also don't bring us closer to finding out. My point is being open-minded above all. My point isn't solely that God is the reason. My point is that all hypotheses are equal as each other. My point is that I am open-minded.

If you want to be critical of my open-mindedness on the subject, that is your criticism, I will take it, but I am not going to change it. Unless you can factually prove that some of them are incorrect, which we know no one can do, then I will stay open-minded about it.

History has taught us that science is a moving subject, in our short history, we have changed our science or our understanding of it many times over. At best is that we can say, at our current understanding, it is this, nothing more. Which is fine, but don't tell me that it is all of it.

Tell that to the guy who split the atom.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Right, well to summarise, a make belief all powerful individual is not explainable by any existing scientific construct (theory or 'scientific fact'). It is exactly that, make belief. It has no academic basis or reason to be studied further other than some nut case came up with a (relatively basic, easy to digest) idea.

Theories that get us so far to explain the origins of the universe are supported (either partially or in full) by other theories, which are in turn supported by either scientific fact or theory.

So the weighting to suggest it is not a make belief God character is far more acceptable than something that has absolutely zero basis in any field of science.

Continually arguing otherwise just makes you sound like some religious crack pot and detracts from progression where it could be made.

Yes it could be god. But then you're done with your academic paper. GJ.

I see this point, however, this point is purely based on our current understanding of the existing level of science in this universe. It would be like writing a science paper about Neutrons before Neutrons was discovered. We don't know all the science and we certainly don't know the science outside our universe.

Science and our understanding of it shifts. It would be arrogant to say we understand everything, nobody is saying God created it, I am saying that since nothing is proven, and that our laws of understanding of science don't really apply here, or that we don't know that it does, it could be anything and nothing is off the table.

I know I am not smart enough to come up with THE answer, I am also not stupid enough to suggest "I know this, it must be this, watch this video and you are a crackpot for not following this hypothesis".

If I am a fool to be open-minded about the fact that science is a moving target and that we are learning every day, I carry that label with pride.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You're being a bit melodramatic. It is perfectly plausible to be open minded but (as of today and likely to be far into the future) dismiss claims such as the universe was created by a make belief character.

As you rightly said though, things change daily, and 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed 100mbit speeds on my mobile phone would ever be possible. How did I get confidence that was a plausible reality? Wireless Comms began to hit mainstream and websites grew fatter. It seemed plausible if not a distant reality.

Make belief character creating the universe? Show me someone/something that exhibits traits that prove an ounce of what you are suggesting and I'm sure the world will accept it as a 'not bad' idea.

If you can't, then it is just science fiction and resolved to the big screen/books and has no place in academia.

That is just full of contradictions. I am not being melodramatic, i didn't use the word crackpot, I am being open-minded on the subject.

If you allow the idea that science is moving and that our laws of science do not or may not apply before plank time or whatever name the next poster wants to call it. Then how can you confidently say that our current science is pointing in the right direction? If our science may not apply at all.

Again, i am not pointing at one single point of answer or a set of it (like you and some people are), i am saying, don't discount them, however silly it might sound.

As for science fiction...much of it has become reality. Didn't we teleport an electron not long ago?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Because to make progress you have to take (or make) decisions. Living in a fairytale where any and all ideas are accepted is not how the large hadron collider came about, or the Hubble telescope. You're welcome to accept all ideas as daft and as pointless as they are, but most folk have a filter to ensure they don't waste their time. And you know what? Maybe sometimes you'll be right. But odds are, you won't be. It's why peer reviewing to get into scientific journals is a critical step in the process.

May I now refer to the US president who proposed bleach to kill Corona virus? Yeah, that's why we filter out bad ideas even if they are not explicitly proven nonesense.

You make decision to progress a theory, until that theory hits a dead end, then someone else start another theory.

Like whats his name said earlier, "we don't know", to say that you do is being dishonest.

You seem to forget that our science doesn't apply in this other universe too or there is a big chance that it is an altered version, which you keep applying. It's like trying to force a square through a triangle.

The US president bleach thing...it's all this universe, we understand it. He is the idiot for suggesting that.

Before the big bang moment, we don't understand it, we are hypothesising, all of us. You and I included. I am not even saying you are wrong, I think you are right, but I don't discount anything.

Like i said, call me a fool if you want.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You've mistaken fail fast for progressive build. No one is throwing away theories and starting an adjacent one. They fork and evolve.

You can use the 'we don't know' as a gotcha and you're entirely right to. It doesn't mean we are closed minded because a make belief creator isn't high on our priority list to disprove, prove, or even explore a second further.

I am not calling you close minded, I am saying I am MORE open minded than you are. Certainly not discounting anything, even the absurd. I even realise the absurdity of it, I think I mentioned I don't believe in God? like 20 times?

But I am open to the idea, not discounting anything, even the absurd.

Why? because the simple reason that our laws or understanding of science simply may not apply then, if the laws change then everything can.

 

[Raymond Lin]

That only hold trues IF that place even exists. Which it might not. Science might be going down a blind alley. Or it might be on the right path.

I agree with all of that, any of it can be true.