First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply The Big Bang never happened?
55520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / 風の山
Offline
Posted 2/13/15


complete mistake on my part, mainly on the spelling. im to tired at this point to trust my memory. but i've been around plenty of reputable physicist that constantly mock it. there are plenty of physicist that don't believe in a model, though now that i think about it i feel like i mixed the opinions with one with someone that i respect in the field. i apologize for my mindless posting, i was one of the fellas that was excited learning about quarks coming out of fermilab, its been a while since i followed up on it and all the mockery rubbed off on me. i still can't believe that i said said they didn't exist, boy am i tired, but not ganna get any soon.
18704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Northwest
Offline
Posted 2/13/15
Well there will always be new theories that will overthrow the previous one. In my opinion I really don't think anyone has it right or even close to being right.
13789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hideout #13
Offline
Posted 2/13/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I created the universe...


Thank you!
27486 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Online
Posted 2/13/15
23142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/13/15

OtakuKoala wrote:

This doesn't explain why the universe is expanding.


this
Posted 2/13/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

Everything sounds good until you ask the question "well... why dosn't the nucleus split apart if positive charges repel?"




I really liked your brief history on particle physics, especially this part... this question has never occurred to me at all during my time studying science! haha. It's refreshing to read something so simple, yet so profound.
1206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Texas (United Sta...
Offline
Posted 2/13/15
I still choose to believe in the Big Bang Theory, scientist have recreated it on a much smaller scale and was successful. But once again science will never be able to prove what was there before the big bang theory, something had to knock over the first domino in order to start the reaction. but thats just my opinion.
Posted 2/13/15
I read about that.
Apparently they're proposing that "nothing happened".
:I Which is better somehow?
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/13/15

Biggle wrote:

Come on guys, lets get real for a second-

The Big Bang has been only a theory, Nuff' said.


While still a theory it has evidence and facts that support it thats the whole point behind science is to observe and find those facts and evidence to support your theory. So while there are still holes in the how and why the evidence points to a Big Bang.

Faith no evidence or facts does not give answers to questions about how things work. No validation required doesn't require an open mind.
Science requires evidence and facts. Answers question as to how things work without science you computer is just a magic box with blue smoke inside it to make it work. Takes time to prove or disprove and should always be validated and verified. Requires an open mind to work with new and interesting ideas.
3333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/13/15
I feel like they are just taking shots in the dark now, a theory is essentially a guess. I'll stick to last thursdayism, the universe was created last thursday along with all our memories of lives we supposedly lived.
6250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 2/13/15
Terry Prattchet has it right, the world is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle that is ambling through space. This makes sense and I see no holes in this theory whatsoever. No need for big bangs - they sound pretty dangerous to me anyway. Exploding matter...could hurt yourself messing around with that sort of stuff.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/14/15

wolfsaiga wrote:



complete mistake on my part, mainly on the spelling. im to tired at this point to trust my memory. but i've been around plenty of reputable physicist that constantly mock it. there are plenty of physicist that don't believe in a model, though now that i think about it i feel like i mixed the opinions with one with someone that i respect in the field. i apologize for my mindless posting, i was one of the fellas that was excited learning about quarks coming out of fermilab, its been a while since i followed up on it and all the mockery rubbed off on me. i still can't believe that i said said they didn't exist, boy am i tired, but not ganna get any soon.


They're mocking what's called the "standard model of particle physics". Mostly because of the reason behind my "we understand matter, almost too well at this point" comment. They mean that in the sense that 'well it HAS to be wrong', because while matter is just about completely explained, we've in the process discovered 'most of the universe isn't made of matter'. We have a lot of reason then to suspect that the standard model is incomplete, especially because we don't have a very simple version of quantum gravity... so right now, physicists really, REALLY want to find some deviation from predictions of the standard model. Any deviations from predictions.

This isn't exactly a new scenario physicists have faced either. Physicists didn't really have an explanation for quantum mechanics, but they could make predictions as to the 'lowest possible energy shell' at a distance with which we should hopefully see new phenomenon to help us explain what's really going on making electron orbitals. This was called the 'bohr radius', and new phenomenon *did* come in at those scales, specifically, 'quantum mechanics' came in.

We even have a scale like that today, a distance where we're almost positive that some new phenomenon could be observed to better explain the phenomenon we don't understand (like dark matter/dark energy). It's called the 'planck scale', where the effects of the 'force' of gravity would be considered equal to the other forces. Except that only applies to absurdly, almost impossibly small things, and absurdly near impossibly high energies. Probing planck scale physics isn't easy. But that's why we build bigger and better experiments, to push and test the limits of what we do currently know.

So, two lessons. The first is that the standard model infuriates physicists because of the things it doesn't explain and the lack of a model underpinning it. It *has* to be wrong, we can't just keep pushing the limit closer and closer and find nothing, can we? The idea that 'the standard model is totally descriptive of nature' is clearly false, because of so much it doesn't explain! (Note* It does describe matter to nearly any degree of accuracy you could want in every day life)

The second lesson is despite all of the things that there are to mock and jeer and hate about the model... the standard model works. It works so SO god damn well. So well that despite decades of trying, no real experiment has stood in contrast to the limits set by the standard model. Physicists WANT the standard model to fail right now, because then we can get some clues as to what deeper properties underlie the universe. However, no serious physicist would really question the fact that the standard model works. It explains matter almost freakishly well.

When (hopefully not if) we replace the standard model, the standard model will still be considered true for just about ALL class of phenomenon outside of really exotic circumstances. Just like you'll likely never need to do a Lorentz Transform in your every day life, Newtonian Mechanics is well sufficient, when the standard model is 'proven' wrong, it's still right for all of the things it predicted. That narrows the things it's wrong about to, well, the very very very very tiny, and absurdly energetic.

Also, I look forward to the LHC starting up again this year going for over 10TeV collisions. We still might not see signs of new physics yet, but it'd help set a TON of limits. (But apparently if a 100TeV collider found no new physics, we'd be forced to go back to the drawing board... at least from what little I've read/heard on the subject)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.