'Big Bang' actually 'Big Chill,' new theory says

[jobberone]

Most scientists in that area will tell you that although the numbers are worked out pretty well there can be other explanations. In fact the numbers work out pretty well up to a very small fraction of a second after the 'Big Bang'. Brane theory has not been ruled out. I wish I knew more mathematics.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Or they made the whole thing up. We would never know. I am not saying I don't agree with the statements. I just find it funny that scientist can tell people with fair certainty what happened billions of years ago while many common things today go unexplained. They can be bold in their findings because no one can go back in time and check it.

I don't believe they're just making things up. Everyone is privy to the same data. However, how we interpret the data depends on the lens through which we view it. And the shape of the lens is determined by the assumptions we hold.

Science holds certain assumptions, and we as a society regard these assumptions with a certain level of esteem because science has a knack for producing things that make our lives easier.

That's really what it's all about: What's the benefit?

 

[jobberone]

Because they get more funding for more research if they push the findings others want them to find.

The Standard Model of particle physics is still a theory because there are still some things which is does not answer well or at all. However, it has stood the test of time so far and goes a long way in explaining the world of the very small even if it doesn't address gravity, dark matter yada. It may evolve into something else or just get tweaked. Who knows. Difficult to dismiss it though.

 

[jwitten82]

Its a theory that is tested and shown to be true on a daily basis. It can be observed. Butt, of course, some want to still call it a theory.

A theory in science is NOT a guess.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The Standard Model of particle physics is still a theory because there are still some things which is does not answer well or at all. However, it has stood the test of time so far and goes a long way in explaining the world of the very small even if it doesn't address gravity, dark matter yada. It may evolve into something else or just get tweaked. Who knows. Difficult to dismiss it though.

Because gravity has never been observed at the quantum level. Let that one sink in for a moment.

 

[jwitten82]

"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

 

[SaltwaterServr]

That's not just a clash of metaphor. That's a breakdown of reality as we understand it.

:laugh1:

Regardless, see if you can find "through the wormhole" and check out the particle physics one. great visuals of a silicon drop acting as both above an aqueous medium.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Because they get more funding for more research if they push the findings others want them to find.

Absolute rubbish.

 

[burmafrd]

"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

That is why the whole Man Made Global Warming BS is just that.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down numerous times before man came around
But now suddenly we are responsible for this one? Total BS.

 

[jobberone]

Because gravity has never been observed at the quantum level. Let that one sink in for a moment.

And your point is? The fact we don't have a field and corresponding particle for gravity doesn't mean the Standard Model is greatly flawed.

100 years ago the universe was static and we thought our galaxy was it. Now there are at least 400 billion galaxies and we've moved on from the Brownian movement of pollen proving atoms to the Standard Model which describes the matter we deal with very well. And gravity still exists.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

And your point is? The fact we don't have a field and corresponding particle for gravity doesn't mean the Standard Model is greatly flawed.

Just that it hasn't been observed at the quantum level. I'm not questioning the validity of the Standard Model or the existence of gravity.

If gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level, the implications would be interesting. That's all.

Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how touchy people get during cosmological discussions.

 

[masomenos]

That is why the whole Man Made Global Warming BS is just that.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down numerous times before man came around
But now suddenly we are responsible for this one? Total BS.

Wait, so because something happened without human involvement in the past, there can't be an anthropogenic cause in the present?

That doesn't make sense.

 

[jobberone]

Just that it hasn't been observed at the quantum level. I'm not questioning the validity of the Standard Model or the existence of gravity.

If gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level, the implications would be interesting. That's all.

Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how touchy people get during cosmological discussions.

There is no reason for you to inject emotions into this when there is none. I'm merely having a nice debate. I have no idea what the heck gravity really is. Not my field although I try to understand it as much as I can. So I don't know what the implications are for the Standard Model without a gravity field and its associated particle. That's way beyond my pay grade.

 

[jobberone]

Again please leave religion out of this and every thread on this site. Let's don't get a nice thread closed. Thanks.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There is no reason for you to inject emotions into this when there is none. I'm merely having a nice debate. I have no idea what the heck gravity really is. Not my field although I try to understand it as much as I can. So I don't know what the implications are for the Standard Model without a gravity field and its associated particle. That's way beyond my pay grade.

Was there reason to assume I was questioning the validity of the Standard Model?

 

[jobberone]

Was there reason to assume I was questioning the validity of the Standard Model?

I thought the Standard Model could predict a gravity field and 'gravitons'. That's how it relates to quantum physics supposedly. If that's out of date or disproved then forgive.

 

[JD_KaPow]

That is why the whole Man Made Global Warming BS is just that.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down numerous times before man came around
But now suddenly we are responsible for this one? Total BS.

Hardly.

The fact that the planet has climate cycles independent of humans is not evidence that human activity cannot affect climate.

And this idea people have that climate scientists haven't thought about all this and incorporated it into their work is, frankly, baffling.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I thought the Standard Model could predict a gravity field and 'gravitons'. That's how it relates to quantum physics supposedly. If that's out of date or disproved then forgive.

It absolutely does make those predictions. And based on our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model is unquestionably the most valid model.

However, like all of science, the Standard Model is subject to revision as new information and trains of thought become available.

Gravity undoubtedly exist. Consequently, if it doesn't exist at the quantum level, it overturns our "bottom-up" view of the universe. It would be a fascinating development.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

If your point wasn't valid, science would have no need for discussions of a Multiverse.

 

[jobberone]

It absolutely does make those predictions. And based on our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model is unquestionably the most valid model.

However, like all of science, the Standard Model is subject to revision as new information and trains of thought become available.

Gravity undoubtedly exist. Consequently, if it doesn't exist at the quantum level, it overturns our "bottom-up" view of the universe. It would be a fascinating development.

Ok, then I just didn't understand you. We're on the same page. Are you a physicist?