sculleywr said:
So instead of creating energy you are creating time? That is as much an argument for God's existence as it is yours, because now you claim that time began at the creation/spontaneous accident of the universe. The problem is, I still don't see the how. Now you need a time producing machine, which makes it even more impossible than the "multiple universe theory." That requires the infron field, which is something big bang cosmologists created to explain the creation of energy where no kinetic or potential energy exists, and something to take that energy and convert it into useable energy, which is now known as the string theory. Science is only science when it can be observed or experimented on.
We still don't know if time was created or not in the Big Bang. That's being worked on. There are other ideas that has the universe be made by colliding branes in higher dimensions. I think that there are people who think time was created along with space in the Big Bang because of space and time being coupled into one manifold, spacetime, by relativity. So maybe the time we know and love may have been created within some sort of metatime, we'll see what we find.
They say that they actually could test predictions made by models with higher dimensions by testing the strength of gravity at sub-millimeter scales. Gravity is much weaker than the other three forces. String theory say that the bosons that carry gravity are closed loops that can slip into other dimensions, unlike other particles that are open strings that are stuck in the four we can see.
Predictions are also made for new particles to appear at higher energies. When the energies of particles increase, their wavelengths get shorter. When they get short enough, they're small enough to poke into other dimensions and allow for the creation of those new kinds of particles. They're preparing to test that with particle accelerators that reach higher energies.
You can observe a supernova, but as yet, no human has actually experimented on the happenings inside a star at the time.
What do you know about stellar astrophysics? I took a course in that and the models of star interiors are based on known physics regarding the behavior of gases and plasma such as convection and radiative transfer of heat and how the particles fuse to release energy. The models are tested by comparing them to stars and supernove we see. It may be an indirect way of finding out about things, but our evidence for subatomic particles is also indirect because we don't directly see them ourselves. Theories about their behavior are tested by the predicted effects that we can see.
There are two types of science according to Berkely University, Experimental and Observeable. So how do you observe the Big Bang.
We don't need to observe something to know that it had happened. For example we can figure out that a murder had happened based on evidence from the scene. Likewise, the Big Bang theory predicts things like the cosmic microwave background, the ratios of the light nuclei, the large scale structure of the universe and the universe's expansion.
Another example is looking at present day operations of the plate tectonics processes, distribution of fossils and types of rock and minerals, magnetic polarity and knowledge of climate to figure out what ancient Earth looked like throughout geological time without us having to have seen it for ourselves.
Assuming that time didn't exist prior to the big bang is just that: and assumption.
Yeah, there are other models I already mentioned.
Assuming that there is a negative energy requires antimatter, which is also an assumption, since nobody has ever observed or experimented on antimatter.
Negative energy and antimatter are not the same things. When I was talking about negative energy, I meant gravitional potential energy. A physics textbook should be able to show why it is negative, as I've explained.
Guess what? Antimatter exists. Its existence was predicted in 1928 by the famous physicist Paul Dirac when he was working on a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics and predicted the existence of what turned out to be the positron, the antielectron. It was confirmed experimentally in 1932. The very first detection of the positron is right
here. These are cloud chamber tracks of an electron and a positron. They go in opposite directions because they have equal but opposite signed charages. The tracks mirror one other because both particles have the same masses. If the positive one was a proton, it'd have a differently shaped track due to a higher mass.
Now they often make antiprotons and antineutrons as well as the antimatter counterparts of other particles. It is a basic idea of the Standard Model of quantum physics. They've even made antihydrogen atoms.
Guess what? They actually use antimatter in hospitals! Positron emission tomography or PET scanning of the body. Some radioactive isotopes decay by emitting a positron. So they inject one of those isotropes into the person to be scanned. As the radioactive atoms decay, they emit positrons, which annihilate with electrons, releasing two gamma ray photons moving in opposite directions. Those are detected by the scanner and are used to build a 3d image of the insides of the body.
Building on assumptions is building strawman on strawman.
Scientists know this that building on lots of assumptions is not a good idea too. So what they do is seek to have the least number of assumptions to explain what they see. There's also Occam's razor that picks the model with the least number of assumptions that can explain what is seen as the most likely one.
I see the assumptions buildup plenty of times in religions.
Nobody, no matter how sophisticated their technology, can create a true vacuum.
Right, because the vacuum turned out not to be empty. Quantum mechanics says that the vacuum cannot be empty, but has a minimum energy, called the zero point energy, because of the fluctuations due to the uncertainty principle for energy and time.
Your energy density experiment is useless because they did not find where the energy went or came from. Energy always comes from somewhere and always goes somewhere.
Useless, how? Are you referring to the Casimir effect experiments? Quantum mechanics predicted the effect and the experiments confirmed it. You say that energy always come from somewhere and always goes somewhere. That applies to things within the universe. Why are you trying to apply it to the whole universe when we don't yet know if time existed before the Big Bang? If there was no time before the Big Bang, trying to figure out how the energy got transferred would be useless because there would be no "before" state for the energy. And remember that gravitional potential energy is negative, so the sum of that and the positive energy can be zero. As I said before, it had been shown that it would be zero for closed and flat universes and evidence shows a flat universe for the one we are in.
all the laws of thermodynamics, not just the first, are broken by the big bang.
Since you said that all of them were violated, then I'll list them.
Zeroth law said:
If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Explain how that is broken.
First law said:
The increase in the energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.
That is the conservation of energy. Note that it says "closed system." There are ideas like colliding branes that would have this universe be open with energy coming from the collision. There's also the idea that black holes actually make other universes that disconnect from ours. Those ideas are still be researched and work is being done on how to test their predictions, like the ones involving higher dimensions I've talked about.
Second law said:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
The Big Bang actually follows the second law because it began in with a low entropy, meaning a highly ordered state as the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background shows. The variations of the background are very tiny. Just one number, the temperature, could characterize the distribution of matter and energy in the early universe because it was very uniform.
Third law said:
As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.
How does the Big Bang violate this? The Big Bang began with a very high temperature and it's approaching zero. Processes will end up running down unless something happen to increase the temperature. The book The Five Ages of the Universe gives the story of the universe in the far future and how it could run down.
How do you explain it breaking the law of momentum conservation? How do you explain that stellar bodies, not just random planet sized rocks and stars, but whole galaxies are going in completely random directions?
That's easy to explain from what I learned in labs for basic physics classes. It's the net sum that remains the same. For an example with linear momentum, a gun with a bullet in it has a net momentum of zero. When it's fired, the bullet gets momentum and the gun gets the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction, which means it has an opposite sign from the bullet's momentum. Add those two and it's still zero.
The same thing could be done with angular momentum with things like gears. Two gears start with zero angular momentum and spinning one makes the other one spin in the opposite direction. The angular momentums have opposite signs from each other, so they add up to zero.
Since the angular momentum of things like galaxies are random with no greater chance for any value over others, the number of objects with a particular value should be equal to those of any other value. So they should all add up to a net sum of zero. So the Big Bang did not break the conservation of angular momentum. It's the same idea that the negative energy of gravitional potential energy cancels out the positive energy of the matter and radiation.
Generally speaking, all matter from an explosion will be heading directly away from the center of the explosion if there is no force acting on them.
Why do you think that the Big Bang had a center? This is a misconception of the Big Bang as an explosion in space. It was actually a explosion that included matter, energy and space itself. We know this because we see the effects of the expansion of space in the redshifts of galaxies.
A common two dimensional analogy is blowing up a balloon with dots on it that represent the galaxies. Someone on one of the dots would see all of the other dots moving away with the ones further away moving faster than the ones closer in. All of the dots could say the same thing about each other.
A common three dimensional analogy is a raisin bread being cooked in an oven with the raisins representing galaxies. As the bread expands, the raisins would see each other moving away with the ones further away moving away faster. All of the rasins could say the same thing about each other.
We see higher redshifts for galaxies and quasars the further away they are. This was confirmed by using other distance measuring methods. In that sort of expansion, no one point can claim to be the center of the universe. Imagine a really huge balloon surface or a huge bread with the dots or raisins being the galaxies.
The expansion does not need a force in the usual sense because it's an expansion of space itself, not the kind with matter moving through space. The galaxies themselves could have their own motions through space relative to other members of their clusters, but they're still influenced by the expansion of space. This expansion had been known about since 1929 when evidence for it was found by Hubble.
As I talked about before, there is evidence of a force accelerating the expansion of the universe, known as dark energy, which is not your everyday force.
Earlier, you said that the idea of multiverses was impossible. There are actually four levels of multiverses that had been conceptized. The first two levels are predicted by inflation models that has space expand very fast very soon after the Big Bang. Nothing can move space faster than light, but there's no restriction like that on space, so it can carry stuff beyond the cosmic horizon.
Level I: The Hubble volume is the volume of space we can see because light have had time since the Big Bang to reach us. The stuff beyond that volume is not visible to us yet and cannot affect us yet. For each point in space, there is a Hubble volume around it. The Hubble volumes beyond our own are Level I parallel universes. This depends on space continuing out to infinity, which is the case for a flat universe. It's also simpiler to specifiy an infinite flat universe than a finite closed universe because the closed universe would also have a number specifying its overall curve. Our universe being flat is also supported by the microwave background.
Level II: Chaotic inflation, also known as the bubble model, has different regions with different vacuum energy densities leading to different values of constants, dimensionity and amounts of particles. Those different regions are Level II parallel universes.
Level III: This is from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is actually simpler than the Copenhagen interpretation because those like the Copenhagen interpretation has wavefunctions collapsing when observating it. Replacing wavefunction collapse with something known as quantum decoherence resolves many quantum paradoxes such as the wave-particle duality.
The Copenhagen interpretation assumes that the wavefunction collapse is something that just happens. Quantum decoherence provides an explanation instead of just assuming something happens. It is the interaction of the quantum system with the environoment that makes it look like its wavefunction is collapsing.
This had been measured in 1996 by sending pairs of atoms, each in a superposition of two states into a cavitiy full of microwaves. Both states change the phase of the microwaves by different amounts, putting the microwaves into a superposition too. The microwaves interacted with the environoment around the cavitity, making the system decoherence to a definite state. This was measured by varying the energy levels of the atoms and the time between sending in members of the pairs of atoms.
The many-worlds interpretation also makes quantum cosmology make more sense because now there is no need to have an observator outside the universe. It also make quantum mechanics deterministic.
Regarding wave-particle duality, a well known experiment is sending things like photons or electrons through double slits and seeing the interference patterns, even if the photons or electrons were sent one at a time, as if each object interferenced with itself. In the many-worlds interpretation, one does not have to think of each object as going through both slits at the same time and interferencing with itself. The universe splits into two parallel universes. In one, the object goes through one slit. In the other one, it goes through the other one. They would interference with each other. Having the universe split into parallel universes so the two versions of the objects would interference with each other is deterministic, rather than having the object's probablity wavefunction going through both slits and interferencing with itself. All of the possible ways for it to happen exist in an universe. Those universes are Level III parallel universes.
Level VI: Now there is work on finding the theory of everything, the theory that describes all of the basic particles and interactions of the universe. There are many possible theories, but only one of them fits our universe. Why the one for this universe and not another one? Level VI universes are universes described by different theories. For each possible theory, there exists a Level VI universe in what is known as the Ultimate Ensemble. This is actually simpler than having only an universe with only one theory because the theory of the universe could be considered a parameter. Having only one universe would mean having parameters for what theory to use and what constants the theory would need. Those are free parameters because they are not predicted. Having all of the Level VI universes existing would make those not be free parameters because they all exist anyway.
There are more than one string theories and they've been found to be versions of a M-theory. In the Ultimate Ensemble, all of those versions exist as universes, along with anything that isn't the M-theory. The Ultimate Ensemble is simpler because it has all possiblities rather than being restricted to only one universe with one theory.
The fourth level contains all possiblities, so there there are no fifth or higher levels.
Since you mentioned Berkely University, do you go there?
