Will We Know What Came Before the Big Bang Within the Next 50 Years?

[sealchan]

The multiverse is a very theoretical astrophysics model; it is a proof-driven or proof-based model, not evidence-theory (“theory” as “scientific theory”).

Meaning, the multiverse model is untested (and might be untestable), therefore it isn’t science.

Theoretical science, or in this case theoretical physics, are studies that use proof instead of evidence, meaning (theoretical) physicists are trying to solve physics problems with logics and maths (proofs), often with equations. Theoretical physicists tried to give answers by proving or disproving the equations; the solution(s) are abstract.

Experimental science, on the other hand, relies on being able to test falsifiable hypothesis, through “observation”, via finding verifiable evidence or through lab-controlled repeatable experiments.

Observation means evidence that you observe or detect, being able to quantify, measure, test, verify or refute.

Only evidence, not proof, will determine if model or hypothesis is scientifically true or false.

So far, the multiverse is untested, and highly probable that it could be untestable. If that is the case, multiverse model will eventually be deemed to be refuted model or worse, a pseudoscience concept like astrology.

Mathematics has served us very well and has earned its place in our scientific trust. Given the variety of theoretical physics models I am confident we won't see science devolving into a dogma any time soon.

We should not, perhaps, even expect that science will be able to put into the lab the reality in which the lab resides. We should expect, since we are not disembodied spirits but at least embodied beings, that there will be a limit to how we can configure the reality we exist within in order to tease out the nature of that same reality. Via mathematics we sort of cheat our way around this limitation and find, in a more indirect fashion, support for our ideas. If this seems weak then I would say that any system of truth which purports to not have to struggle with its own limitations is itself weak in comparison.

It may be that we can formulate an understanding of our Universe as a set of physical laws in action but then also recognize that some phenomena are not included in that theory. Those phenomena can then be classified as extra-Universal and within the realm of the "multiverse" or whatever we might choose to call it.

I think your effort to rob the sciences of its theory as some sort of substandard practice is disingenuous. Scientists freely acknowledge the distinction themselves but, again, given the immense success of using mathematics, you would be hard pressed to condemn theory as merely a non-scientific practice.

 

[sealchan]

However the big bang theory is neither. It does address the facts (the observed red shift and the cosmic background radiation) and is not really counterintuitive. Though science is chock-full of counterintuitive concepts so that is a lousy criterion for dismissing something anyway.

What is unexplained is the apparent acceleration of the expansion, not the expansion per se. The time to jettison the big bang hypothesis will be when there is evidence that conflicts with it. Acceleration does not conflict with it. It just means there seems to be an additional unexplained feature, i.e. the model needs further development.

This is a common simplification error that I see people make in an effort to discredit whole theories based on the common-place (but for them suspicious) process of making major changes or corrections to those theories.

What is most laughable, or perhaps frustrating, is how these sorts of critics don't see the deep irony of how they use the same standards of science to tear down the whole of what scientists are using to honestly reconfigure what has proven to be useful. It is a sort of black and white, immature attitude which says, "You will never be good enough if you are not always perfect!"

 

[exchemist]

This is a common simplification error that I see people make in an effort to discredit whole theories based on the common-place (but for them suspicious) process of making major changes or corrections to those theories.

What is most laughable, or perhaps frustrating, is how these sorts of critics don't see the deep irony of how they use the same standards of science to tear down the whole of what scientists are using to honestly reconfigure what has proven to be useful. It is a sort of black and white, immature attitude which says, "You will never be good enough if you are not always perfect!"

Well yes, that is what comes of approaching scientific theories as if they are like holy scripture.

I've lost count of the number of times I have found myself pointing out, to creationists and other not very well informed critics of science, that all theories are provisional and it is all a constant work-in-progress of model-building. There is no claim in science to final and absolute "truth", whatever that may mean. We use what works, and the observations that don't fit become the focus of research, in order to improve the model. Sometimes - as with the plum pudding model of the atom - the whole model has to be thrown out, but more usually it is a process of adding or tweaking here and there.

 

[sealchan]

Well yes, that is what comes of approaching scientific theories as if they are like holy scripture.

I've lost count of the number of times I have found myself pointing out, to creationists and other not very well informed critics of science, that all theories are provisional and it is all a constant work-in-progress of model-building. There is no claim in science to final and absolute "truth", whatever that may mean. We use what works, and the observations that don't fit become the focus of research, in order to improve the model. Sometimes - as with the plum pudding model of the atom - the whole model has to be thrown out, but more usually it is a process of adding or tweaking here and there.

In saying that though I think it should be stressed that scientific knowledge doesn't restart from scratch but rather looses a branch or part of a branch to grow a new one in its place that is really not a very different branch after all. I feel it important to stress this so that a fairer picture is made and one that not as easy to dismiss. A naive enough believer might convince themselves that science offers no lasting truth if none of it is guaranteed to be persistent.

It's all ludicrous I suppose given the context of this whole discussion. But I cant help but to strive to communicate to those who seem on some level to be sincere.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I believe the universe ended and began in a single moment in a giant explosion, and alpha and omega are mirror images.

 

[gnostic]

Mathematics has served us very well and has earned its place in our scientific trust. Given the variety of theoretical physics models I am confident we won't see science devolving into a dogma any time soon.

We should not, perhaps, even expect that science will be able to put into the lab the reality in which the lab resides. We should expect, since we are not disembodied spirits but at least embodied beings, that there will be a limit to how we can configure the reality we exist within in order to tease out the nature of that same reality. Via mathematics we sort of cheat our way around this limitation and find, in a more indirect fashion, support for our ideas. If this seems weak then I would say that any system of truth which purports to not have to struggle with its own limitations is itself weak in comparison.

It may be that we can formulate an understanding of our Universe as a set of physical laws in action but then also recognize that some phenomena are not included in that theory. Those phenomena can then be classified as extra-Universal and within the realm of the "multiverse" or whatever we might choose to call it.

I think your effort to rob the sciences of its theory as some sort of substandard practice is disingenuous. Scientists freely acknowledge the distinction themselves but, again, given the immense success of using mathematics, you would be hard pressed to condemn theory as merely a non-scientific practice.

I don’t doubt mathematics are useful tools in logic for science, and that these can help achieve understanding of the world around us.

But maths alone, don’t make any hypothesis, “science”.

It is great, if the scientific evidence and mathematics work with each other, achieving the same results, thus giving the same solutions. Then here, we would know the maths (eg equations or formulas) are correct, when the evidence back up the formulas or equations or constants.

But what if the evidence give different solutions than the solutions given in the maths?

If the evidence consistently tested the maths, and consistently disagree with the maths, then it is probable that the maths is wrong, not the evidence.

Mathematics is only useful to us, if the evidence consistently back up the equations or formulas as they are defined and used in the hypotheses.

 

[gnostic]

I believe the universe ended and began in a single moment in a giant explosion, and alpha and omega are mirror images.

Except the Big Bang isn’t a giant explosion, it was expansion of the universe.

According the Big Bang theory, the further back in time you investigate the universe, the hotter and denser was the universe. Working backward from the Recombination Epoch to the universe’s earliest period, the Planck Epoch, the Planck Epoch was a time when the universe was so hot and dense, that even subatomic particles quarks, leptons) cannot form, and the 4 fundamental interactions or forces were indistinguishable (gravitational, EM, weak nuclear & strong nuclear were unified into a single force).

The BB explained as the universe rapidly expands, the universe rapidly cool down, that it allow for subatomic particles to form, and allow for each force to break away from unified force (known as symmetry breaking). As the universe expands and cools some more, smaller particles began to interact and bond with each other, to form large particles, such as

1. ...strong nuclear force binding 3-quark together forming into hadron particles (protons and neutrons),
2. or binding 2 quarks (quark and antiquark) thereby forming into meson particle.

The formation of hadron particles started when the universe was 10^-6 seconds old, known as the Hadron Epoch.

Normally, particles and antiparticles will annihilate each other, but not when the temperature was still high enough to be in thermal equilibrium. So when temperature did drop, annihilation did take place between quark and antiquark, thereby eliminating mesons.

Despite formation of protons and neutrons, they didn’t immediately form into atomic elements, because the temperature was still too high. And that didn’t occurred until the Primordial Nucleosynthesis period (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN) started until the universe was 10 seconds old, when light atoms formed (ionised hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium); heavier elements, like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, etc didn’t exist.

Atoms were completely ionized, meaning they were positive charged, because electrons didn’t bond with these atoms to form electrically neutral atoms. Electrons didn’t bond with atomic nuclei until the Recombination Epoch, which started when the universe was 377,000 years old.

This (Recombination Epoch) was when the universe changed from being in the plasmatic state and being opaque, to the universe being transparent, and photons were able to travel freely through space. The decoupling of photons from matters, caused the signature radiation to be detectable to this day, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

My points with the Big Bang lecture, is that the universe started with being extremely hot and extremely dense, but as the the universe expands, it would cool down considerably.

Explosion have different effects, particularly nuclear explosion. Before the nuclear explosion, temperature is normal, then with explosion, it become hot, radiating everything within it blast range, breaking down matters.

 

[sealchan]

I don’t doubt mathematics are useful tools in logic for science, and that these can help achieve understanding of the world around us.

But maths alone, don’t make any hypothesis, “science”.

It is great, if the scientific evidence and mathematics work with each other, achieving the same results, thus giving the same solutions. Then here, we would know the maths (eg equations or formulas) are correct, when the evidence back up the formulas or equations or constants.

But what if the evidence give different solutions than the solutions given in the maths?

If the evidence consistently tested the maths, and consistently disagree with the maths, then it is probable that the maths is wrong, not the evidence.

Mathematics is only useful to us, if the evidence consistently back up the equations or formulas as they are defined and used in the hypotheses.

I agree but it's never the case that any theory will ever be fully tested just as it is the case that no evidence is complete but merely a sample which we assume represents the whole.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe the universe ended and began in a single moment in a giant explosion, and alpha and omega are mirror images.

Kindly quote from Jesus in this connection, please.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

I agree but it's never the case that any theory will ever be fully tested just as it is the case that no evidence is complete but merely a sample which we assume represents the whole.

True.

Well, sometimes it take a very short time to test one premise or one prediction in a theory, while at other times, it make take years or even decades to test another premise/prediction of the same theory.

For instance, Alexander Friedmann in 1922, Howard Percy Robertson in 1924-25 and Georges Lemaître in 1927, have all independently predicted that determining the universe would seem to be expanding or contracting by viewing EM radiation (eg light) if two objects (eg 2 galaxies) were increasing or decreasing in wavelength.

If the wavelength was increasing, then the two objects were moving away from each other, hence the universe is expanding; this was known as “redshift”.

If, on the other hand, the wavelength was shortening or decreasing - “blueshift” - then the objects were moving towards each other, hence the universe is contracting.

Not after their hypotheses were published, Edwin Hubble, in 1929, discovered the redshift between galaxies, and this was the first evidence that backed up the expanding universe model (before it was known as the Big Bang theory, which was coined around 1949).

In 1948, the 1920s’ hypotheses was expanded by a team of scientists (George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman) to include the papers and predictions of Primordial Nucleosynthesis (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis or BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The discovery of CMBR didn’t happened until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. This was the 2nd important evidence, which caused the Big Bang hypothesis being elevated to “scientific theory” status, and at the same time, debunked Fred Hoyle’s Steady State model (1948-49).

The discovery of CMBR took a little longer than the redshift observation.

My point is that theory can take some time before the discoveries take place. And sometimes you will only be able to test part of the theory than all of the theory, as it is the case with the Big Bang theory.

 

[paarsurrey]

True.

Well, sometimes it take a very short time to test one premise or one prediction in a theory, while at other times, it make take years or even decades to test another premise/prediction of the same theory.

For instance, Alexander Friedmann in 1922, Howard Percy Robertson in 1924-25 and Georges Lemaître in 1927, have all independently predicted that determining the universe would seem to be expanding or contracting by viewing EM radiation (eg light) if two objects (eg 2 galaxies) were increasing or decreasing in wavelength.

If the wavelength was increasing, then the two objects were moving away from each other, hence the universe is expanding; this was known as “redshift”.

If, on the other hand, the wavelength was shortening or decreasing - “blueshift” - then the objects were moving towards each other, hence the universe is contracting.

Not after their hypotheses were published, Edwin Hubble, in 1929, discovered the redshift between galaxies, and this was the first evidence that backed up the expanding universe model (before it was known as the Big Bang theory, which was coined around 1949).

In 1948, the 1920s’ hypotheses was expanded by a team of scientists (George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman) to include the papers and predictions of Primordial Nucleosynthesis (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis or BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The discovery of CMBR didn’t happened until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. This was the 2nd important evidence, which caused the Big Bang hypothesis being elevated to “scientific theory” status, and at the same time, debunked Fred Hoyle’s Steady State model (1948-49).

The discovery of CMBR took a little longer than the redshift observation.

My point is that theory can take some time before the discoveries take place. And sometimes you will only be able to test part of the theory than all of the theory, as it is the case with the Big Bang theory.

"My point is that theory can take some time before the discoveries take place. And sometimes you will only be able to test part of the theory than all of the theory, as it is the case with the Big Bang theory."

Thanks for one's information on the issue for an ordinary man in the street like me.

Does one mean that humanity should accept a "scientific theory" even if a part of it is observed, on the basis of trust/faith and or belief, please?

Regards
______________
"In observational study, no experiment is conducted. In this type of study, the researcher relies more on data collected. In observational study, the researcher just observes what has happened in the past and what is happening now and draws conclusions based on these data.Jun 22, 2017"
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-observational-study-and-experiments/

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science can only explore things that can be sensed or measured. Hence we can only go back as far as the beginning of light/radiation. It is impossible for science to explore what came before the Big Bang. There are things we can hypothesize based on math, but they simply can't be tested because they are out of our reach, such as the multiuniverse idea.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science can only explore things that can be sensed or measured. Hence we can only go back as far as the beginning of light/radiation. It is impossible for science to explore what came before the Big Bang. There are things we can hypothesize based on math, but they simply can't be tested because they are out of our reach, such as the multiuniverse idea.

It is a good point.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Does one mean that humanity should accept a "scientific theory" even if a part of it is observed, on the basis of trust/faith and or belief, please?

paarsurrey.

Despite what people think about science, science is set in stone, and it isn’t dogma, like religious teaching.

Any accepted scientific theory, past or present, can be replaced by alternative theory, but only if the newer theory have more strong or more conclusive empirical evidences to back up the alternative.

Any existing scientific theory can also be modified/updated, they can be expanded or simplified...but again, only if there are strong or conclusive empirical evidence to support the changes to the theory.

Belief and faith are for religions, not science. Religions don’t rely on evidence, don’t require experiments, where you can test the religions or test any deity.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey.

Despite what people think about science, science is set in stone, and it isn’t dogma, like religious teaching.

Any accepted scientific theory, past or present, can be replaced by alternative theory, but only if the newer theory have more strong or more conclusive empirical evidences to back up the alternative.

Any existing scientific theory can also be modified/updated, they can be expanded or simplified...but again, only if there are strong or conclusive empirical evidence to support the changes to the theory.

Belief and faith are for religions, not science. Religions don’t rely on evidence, don’t require experiments, where you can test the religions or test any deity.

My understanding is that Religion is a different aspect of reality of life and is proved and evidenced from the Word of Revelation from G-d, it is out of the domain of Science so Science is dumb/blind from this aspect. Both work in their own domains and are useful for human beings. Right, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

My understanding is that Religion is a different aspect of reality of life and is proved and evidenced from the Word of Revelation from G-d

Believing in the scriptures to be true and accepting the scriptures as true, is called FAITH.

FAITH isn’t evidence, nor is it proof.

I am referring to “evidence” as the word is used in scientific context, not used in legal context (eg evidence as used in law and in court cases). And I am using “proof” as it would be mathematical and theoretical contexts (eg theoretical physics), and again, not in the legal context.

The reason why I don’t used terms (eg evidence and proof) as defined in law and legal systems, because they used “evidence” and “proof” as if they were synonymous. In the world of natural science and mathematics, there are clear distinctions between “evidence” and “proof”.

After all, this thread is in “Science and Religion” forum, not in the “Law and Religion” forum.

Proof is a logical statement, which in the worlds of science and mathematics, and proofs are usually defined mathematical equations, formulas or constants/metrics. Equations and formulas are proofs, not evidences. Proof only provide abstract solutions, not real-world solutions.

Evidence, on the hand, is a real world solution, based on verifiable and testable observations.

While proof (in the form of formula or equation) is a useful tool in natural science, natural science rely on evidence to determine what are true or false. The Scientific Method use evidence to test the hypothesis and to determine if the hypothesis is TRUE or if the hypothesis is FALSE.

1. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” God.
2. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” soul or spirit.
3. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” heaven and hell.
4. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” miracles.

If each ones of these are true, then there are no EVIDENCES in religion.

And if you cannot put god in an equation or a formula, there is no PROOF in religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science can only "know" what we can sense and measure. Everything else is theoretical. So basically, we can only investigate back as far back as the beginning of light waves in the universe. We use that information to extrapolate back to the Big Bang, since that is the only logical conclusion. Anything before that is not based on what is sensed or measured. It is purely hypothetical speculation based on mathematical problem that can never be tested in any way.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Turn on your TV, tune it off channel, about 10% of the static you hear is echo of big bang.

Also see see the universe expanding, if follows that it was smaller. Plot the expansion backwards and ...

View attachment 33145

And what, all matter in the universe was squashed into in the space of less than an atom.
And before that?
Can it be that the matter was not just squashed up into a singularity, but that space itself actually was just very large, and matter was still distanced as far from each other than now?
perhaps space is shrinking, allowing light to travel linger distances, creating the appearance that it is travelling longer distances resulting in redshift.
It might also be that the size of the Universe and the size of distance is a relative concept where the one expands, in relatio to the other.
But, what was before this singularity if you believe in its existance?

 

[Polymath257]

And what, all matter in the universe was squashed into in the space of less than an atom.
And before that?
Can it be that the matter was not just squashed up into a singularity, but that space itself actually was just very large, and matter was still distanced as far from each other than now?
perhaps space is shrinking, allowing light to travel linger distances, creating the appearance that it is travelling longer distances resulting in redshift.
It might also be that the size of the Universe and the size of distance is a relative concept where the one expands, in relatio to the other.
But, what was before this singularity if you believe in its existance?

Why do you assume it makes sense to ask about what is before the initial singularity? If time began at that point, there would be no 'before'.

Your other speculations don't work because they fail to explain the background radiation.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey.

Despite what people think about science, science is set in stone, and it isn’t dogma, like religious teaching.

Any accepted scientific theory, past or present, can be replaced by alternative theory, but only if the newer theory have more strong or more conclusive empirical evidences to back up the alternative.

Any existing scientific theory can also be modified/updated, they can be expanded or simplified...but again, only if there are strong or conclusive empirical evidence to support the changes to the theory.

Belief and faith are for religions, not science. Religions don’t rely on evidence, don’t require experiments, where you can test the religions or test any deity.

"science is set in stone"

Who set the Science in stone and when please?

Regards