Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"My" idea of replacing singularity with nexus solves it all at t = 0.
"Before" nexus is "work in progress".
Cat
"My" idea of replacing singularity with nexus solves it all at t = 0.
"Before" nexus is "work in progress".
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
This month's All About Space contains an interesting piece about Artificial Intelligence being used on the BB. It does not give an actual reference, but I have managed to find it:
Neural networks have made a breakthrough in modeling the Universe (universemagazine.com)
How does this fit the bullets?
(I don't know - I am just interested).
Cat
Neural networks have made a breakthrough in modeling the Universe (universemagazine.com)
How does this fit the bullets?
(I don't know - I am just interested).
Cat
It looks like they are using it for predicting the spectral results found in clouds. The ability to predict what the spectral lines should look like, especially with respect to the Lyman-Alpha Forest, should add both support and possible refinement to the model.
Only if there is a hiccup between predictions and observations in, say, the CMBR, then we maybe headlines will come our way that question some features of the BBT. I can't imagine anything that would warrant a major change to BBT, however.
Apparently, nothing in this AI effort suggests any issue, else that would be the headline.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, may I ask your esteemed opinion please?
I have been taking your BBT as being after the hiatus surrounding a supposed "singularity". In other words, in my statements, I have been taking the BB as starting after the problem of division by zero. After this non-scientific, metaphysical/philosophical hiatus, the BBT works extremely well, as you have pointed out.
However, I have recently been reading several books, which seem to state that the BB includes (division by zero) and the once accepted singularity. Have I been wrong in stating that BBT begins after the discredited singularity? I have referred to (t = 0) as much as possible (to avoid referring to a singularity. Perhaps I should check the dates on the books more carefully (they seemed otherwise OK) but I am pretty sure they were not all out of date (as much as any book is). What is your opinion of the official stance please?
Cat
I have been taking your BBT as being after the hiatus surrounding a supposed "singularity". In other words, in my statements, I have been taking the BB as starting after the problem of division by zero. After this non-scientific, metaphysical/philosophical hiatus, the BBT works extremely well, as you have pointed out.
However, I have recently been reading several books, which seem to state that the BB includes (division by zero) and the once accepted singularity. Have I been wrong in stating that BBT begins after the discredited singularity? I have referred to (t = 0) as much as possible (to avoid referring to a singularity. Perhaps I should check the dates on the books more carefully (they seemed otherwise OK) but I am pretty sure they were not all out of date (as much as any book is). What is your opinion of the official stance please?
Cat
I wonder if there is an "official" position. But science, by definition, cannot go to places that are beyond any hope of falsification. If it is deemed impossible to test a t=0 event for the entire mass/energy of the universe, then it is metaphysics.
Some scientists may be convinced the t=0 singularity is valid simply by extrapolation from t=10^-43 sec, or by extrapolating from perhaps the 10^-12 sec (one trillionth) of second that comes with observational tests (CERN) as we have discussed elsewhere.
The multiverse idea is arguably not a true scientific theory since no one can possibly imagine a way to test it, excluding a big "bruise" in the universe due to a brane concussion, though none has been found.
So, similarly, if the multiverse is metaphysics then so too is pushing the BBT to where it cannot be tested, thus it can't be part of a scientific theory, but it is suppositional science (metaphysics). It's difficult to suggest that scientists and journalists should not mention a possible singularity scenario because doing so, admittedly, adds great sizzle to the BBT story. But the real story, as you know, is that the theory began starting from today and winding the clock backwards to see what fits the predictions (Lemaitre, 1927). They fit down to as far as we can go, and that is to the first trillionth of a second only.
I just think it doesn't hurt to cut folks slack if they like the thought of a singularity. Look at how few times I criticize those who color our Sun that awful color - yellow, knowing demonstrably that it has not a hint of a tint of yellow.
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
View: https://imgur.com/a/o3kgocO
Helio, as you know, any function divided into 1, gives a graph essentially based on the above. I chose this to avoid "mirror image" graphs such as those you get from 1/x or 1/x^2 et cetera. My point is that I see a "hare and tortoise" paradox here. It is my conjecture (pure metaphysical imagination, I admit) that there may be a function here which produces the t = 0 problem. Just look at the 1/e^x graph. Wouldn't it be fun to find that this backward extrapolation invokes an impossibility which disguises the "real" shape of the line at the smallest time values? And all these minute time intervals and soaring temperatures are the result of this unwarranted extrapolation.
I am, of course, mentioning this purely as a little metaphysical fun.
Cat
P.S. I do know that 1/e^x has mirror images, but these are not shown in the selected graph
P.P.S. Note how the y value is flat from x = -5 to x = -3, so that a straight line would fit the facts over this range. Only approaching certain values does the "extrapolation" break down, and the function shoots to "infinity".
Helio, as you know, any function divided into 1, gives a graph essentially based on the above. I chose this to avoid "mirror image" graphs such as those you get from 1/x or 1/x^2 et cetera. My point is that I see a "hare and tortoise" paradox here. It is my conjecture (pure metaphysical imagination, I admit) that there may be a function here which produces the t = 0 problem. Just look at the 1/e^x graph. Wouldn't it be fun to find that this backward extrapolation invokes an impossibility which disguises the "real" shape of the line at the smallest time values? And all these minute time intervals and soaring temperatures are the result of this unwarranted extrapolation.
I am, of course, mentioning this purely as a little metaphysical fun.
Cat
P.S. I do know that 1/e^x has mirror images, but these are not shown in the selected graph
P.P.S. Note how the y value is flat from x = -5 to x = -3, so that a straight line would fit the facts over this range. Only approaching certain values does the "extrapolation" break down, and the function shoots to "infinity".
Last edited:
Getting back to using "AI" to "model the universe", I see a problem with "training" the AI algorithm. If it is "trained" to match a theory, rather than actual observations, then it will, of course, "find" that theory. Where we have no observations, it can only find the theory. Where we have some observations that require interpretation, then it seems to me that we need to be very careful to not train it to only see our current interpretations.
So, I see AI only as a tool for looking at a multitude of observations and finding patterns that we may have missed. I don't see AI as being "smarter than humans" and being able to independently verify our theories that are mostly conjecture.
So, I see AI only as a tool for looking at a multitude of observations and finding patterns that we may have missed. I don't see AI as being "smarter than humans" and being able to independently verify our theories that are mostly conjecture.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Unc, here is the link to the Astrophysical Journal:
Mapping the Three-dimensional Lyα Forest Large-scale Structure in Real and Redshift Space - IOPscience
and the .pdf:
Mapping the Three-dimensional Lyα Forest Large-scale Structure in Real and Redshift Space (iop.org)
Meanwhile, what do you think of #156?
Cat
Mapping the Three-dimensional Lyα Forest Large-scale Structure in Real and Redshift Space - IOPscience
and the .pdf:
Mapping the Three-dimensional Lyα Forest Large-scale Structure in Real and Redshift Space (iop.org)
Meanwhile, what do you think of #156?
Cat
Meanwhile, what do you think of #156?
I have the same misgivings about extrapolating the BBT back to extreme densities and temperatures, and especially to extremely fast expansions.
As an aside, on the mathematics. division by zero at a point on a graph is not necessarily going to give a "blow-up" result. Yes, it is "undefined", but there are mathematical methods for defining the result, and some come out as reasonable and realistic numbers.
To explain a bit, if you have a theory that give a functional relationship as f(x)/g(x), and g(x) = 0 at x = 0, we really need to think about what f(x) is doing as it approaches zero. In some cases, the limiting value of f(0)/g(0) is a finite number. The easy way to think about that is if the two functions are simply multiples of one another. If f(x)= 2 x g(x), then the relationship can be algebraically simplified to 2g(x)/g(x) =2 for all of x, including x=0.
For more complicated functions, think about their Taylor's Expansions as they approach zero. For instance tan(x)/x approaches 1 as x approaches zero, and the expansion terms divided by x are 1 + terms with x in the numerator, not the denominator.
There are more complicated limit calculations for more complex functions.
And, there are also cases where the limiting result is "infinity". A distinction is made for functions that go to positive or negative infinity on both sides of the zero point, compared to those that go from negative infinity to positive infinity across the zero point.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I'm sorry I failed to get back to this post, Cat.
UNC addresses this question nicely.
But like your tortoise example, we must also consider the other functions as t--> 0, like temperature and density. Those don't go to zero or any other number since they keep climbing towards infinity. Some may say otherwise, which is fine for math, but science claims require testing. The closest science has reached seems to be where t ~ 1E-12 sec. thanks to CERN efforts.
UNC addresses this question nicely.
Any 1/x^n will get you, eventually, to a zero. The tortoise always crosses the finish line because the time has an inverse effect on halfing the distance each time, so it's not a paradox.
But like your tortoise example, we must also consider the other functions as t--> 0, like temperature and density. Those don't go to zero or any other number since they keep climbing towards infinity. Some may say otherwise, which is fine for math, but science claims require testing. The closest science has reached seems to be where t ~ 1E-12 sec. thanks to CERN efforts.
I'm unclear what your idea is here.
Yes. And one doesn't need too go far in crunching those extended terms in a Taylor series to realize a finite answer is the result.
Yes. F(x) = x alone does this, though exponents will get there quicker, of course.
OOPS… I left a hole in. Sumittal:
“Third, today, the universe is comprised of Dark Photons (may explainThird, today, the universe is comprised of Dark Photons (may explain A BLACK HOLE)
“Third, today, the universe is comprised of Dark Photons (may explainThird, today, the universe is comprised of Dark Photons (may explain A BLACK HOLE)
“These first-generation stars, known as Population III stars, ended their lives in titanic supernova explosions that seeded the universe with chemical elements the stars had forged during their lifetimes.”
BBT predicts essentially only H and He for the first stars, which are predicted to be very large.
It’s fairly strong evidence but more of them are needed to be convincing.
You are assuming the BBT is correct and therefore an Origin of the Bang.
Too far fetched knowing what we know and see.
The BB Nucleosynthesis predicts form from quantum matter
Possibly from
Axion
Partonic
Quark
Neutron
Matter, resulting to
Hydrogen
Helium
Carbon
etc
Too far fetched knowing what we know and see.
The BB Nucleosynthesis predicts form from quantum matter
Possibly from
Axion
Partonic
Quark
Neutron
Matter, resulting to
Hydrogen
Helium
Carbon
etc
I'm merely presenting the observations that match a prediction that came out of the theory. Such observations reveal the strength of any theory, with or without assumptions.
Many predictions bubbled-up from the theory as better questions were asked of it. The Pop III question came after several decades of astronomers, especially Walter Badde, who could present enough evidence that made the case that stars behaved differently based on their metallicity. Recall that one early problem for Lemaitre's expansion model was that the distance to the galaxies determined from observations in the late 1920s were underestimated without this knowledge. As a result, the universe appeared to be much younger (~ 2 Gyrs) which suggested stars and rocks were older than the universe.
This was especially true in the use of Cepheid variables. Once Baade realized the distance scale Hubble used was wrong, due to Pop II Cepheid (i.e. W Virginis variables ), then the distance scale was corrected, which revealed the galaxies were much farther away, thus making the universe much older. Even this tweak, however, was short, so more studies came forth to get us to where we are today with the greater age determinations.
The ideal is to have a convergence of independent methodologies that all point to the same age. We have that today for a 13.8 Gyr universe. [Hence the "Big Bang Bullets" listing.] Yet there may be a little more tweaking once the latest CMBR study presenting the "tension" in expansion rates are better understood.
Because of the fast expansion rate (after Inflation), Gamow and Alpher showed that BB Nucleosynthesis was only capable of forming H & He, with only a tiny trace of Li and perhaps Be. The heavier elements could not form as the universe cooled too quickly to give the nuclei time to fuse into heavier nuclei, IIRC. The famous paper on this is the Alpha-Beta-Gamma paper where Gamow asked Hans Bethe to join them so they could call it that.
It took Fred Hoyle to break the bottleneck of nucleosynthesis where carbon was deemed impossible to be formed in stars. Once this hurdle was jumped, it became obvious that stars are the factories for the heavier (ie metals) of the universe.
Last edited:
13.8 billion years mathematically impossible to date the universe,
Name one thing that is actual evidence to support the BBT.
Name one thing that is actual evidence to support the BBT.
We are going to need a bigger telescope to resolve this. Every time a new telescope finds things that don't fit the theory, the theory is just revised. That can be done because it has so much unconstrained parameter influence in its results. We will need to get back to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation emission time in order to show that there was really no galaxies, stars or black holes. And, even if there were some, the theory can probably be modified to account for them. What would really mess with the theory would be finding that the CMBR does not appear to be coming from the distance currently theorized.
CMBR is not evidence of the BBT.
Years gone by
NASA told me that they would point the Hubble telescope in an area completely dark for a million seconds in an area of a rice seed. NASA said they would observe the BB.
I said they will observe over 5000 galaxies in various stages of formation as though they have existed.
After the I million seconds
They said to the world
That, they could not explain how they observed over 5000 galaxies in various stages at 13.2 billion light years away.
So! CMBR
cannot be used as evidence.
Years gone by
NASA told me that they would point the Hubble telescope in an area completely dark for a million seconds in an area of a rice seed. NASA said they would observe the BB.
I said they will observe over 5000 galaxies in various stages of formation as though they have existed.
After the I million seconds
They said to the world
That, they could not explain how they observed over 5000 galaxies in various stages at 13.2 billion light years away.
So! CMBR
cannot be used as evidence.
What evidence found falsifies the theory? Tweaking a model as big as the BBT is highly expected given we keep pushing into distant regions we've never observed before. There are many legitimate questions, but there's a reason scientists express high confidence in it. This thread presents many of the objective arguments favoring BBT, and, at the same time, disfavoring all other scientific models. The CMBR discovery killed the Steady State Theory, at least in the view of the vast majority of cosmologists.
There is greater immaturity in galaxy morphology as we get closer to the CMBR. The CMBR was a prediction of what would happen when H cooled enough to reach recombination (atom formation). No one expects to see any hint of any formation shortly after that as the isotropy is to strong to allow quick formations.
If galaxies can be found at the time of the CMBR, the BBT would go off the rails.
Did Harry miss something?
(Did you miss the OP (Opening Post)?)
I read the OP, it's not the first time reading.
For decades questioning the opinions that are repeated time and time.
Where is the evidence?
Just! saying it is not evidence.
The BBT will remain a theory until evidence supports it.
(Did you miss the OP (Opening Post)?)
I read the OP, it's not the first time reading.
For decades questioning the opinions that are repeated time and time.
Where is the evidence?
Just! saying it is not evidence.
The BBT will remain a theory until evidence supports it.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 35
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram