Jump to content
Lloyd Dupont

World shattering epiphany...

Recommended Posts

I teach physics. The conservation laws apply to the Universe as we observe it now. Not as it was before or at the moment of the Big Bang. We don't know what existed before the Big Bang. The microwave background radiation that we measure shows an origin point of the Universe, and it reveals a very rapid change of a radiation-dominated Universe to a matter-dominated Universe. At no point during that transition were matter and energy not conserved. Light effectively collides in a very dense state, slows down, and becomes the first sub atomic particles, which organize into the first hydrogen and helium atoms.

A law, by definition, is not just an idea that scientists have that isn't testable. Think of a law as transcending experimentation. Because every single time we observe particular phenomena, they always behave in the same way. Every single time. 

That doesn't mean that there isn't more to learn.

I'm having a difficult time getting a read on your post. Because if I take it literally, and not as a joke, it seems to imply that you think that you can have a thought and suddenly invalidate the work of thousands of people thinking and observing for millions of hours. I'm optimistic that that is not the case, but I think it is worth engaging on it, because we live in a world right now where expertise is under constant attack by non-experts.

Edited by klecser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a tidy explanation, Klecser, as I would expect from one who teaches and has explained something many times :)

11 minutes ago, klecser said:

I'm having a difficult time getting a read on your post. Because if I take it literally, and not as a joke, it seems to imply that you think that you can have a thought and suddenly invalidate the work of thousands of people thinking and observing for millions of hours.

Sadly, this is the basis for much of the anti-science sentiment we see today. Layfolk thinking they’ve found a flaw in a scientific principle and, for some reason (which Dunning and Kruger ably explain), not realising that their usually obvious question will have been considered, thought about, knocked back and forth and proven wrong by those with solid knowledge of the subject and the experimental data relating to it. Note: I cast no aspersions about the OP, preferring a generous take that the question was mooted as, “Surely I’m wrong,’ rather than, ‘How could they all have missed this obvious flaw?’

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cloud64 said:

Note: I cast no aspersions about the OP, preferring a generous take that the question was mooted as, “Surely I’m wrong,’ rather than, ‘How could they all have missed this obvious flaw?’

I expect that this is the case as well. It is important for people to continue questioning and to be skeptical. The style of science education that teaches people that science is about memorizing answers is doing them a disservice. Science is a system of questioning. But it also has rules that define the parameters for fairness for that questioning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about engagement hey?

Well... since you want to turn my question into a serious question I was precisely talking about the transition between (and I quote you) 

5 hours ago, klecser said:

We don't know what existed before the Big Bang.

and after....

So I will let get you jumping around and shout as much as you like now... since you are fighting a fight that isn't there... I felt compelled to respond since your aggression was direct at me, but I don't have the energy to defend ideas I don't subscribe too (either? 😮 ) ...
Mm... come to think of it might be fun... not sure which angle I should defend though? Magical creation perhaps? POW into SIZ? It's a thing!

 

Fun fact, I just realised checking out your bio, I study physic at uni and during my PhD as long as you lived 😮 
You bio doesn't say whether you're American or not though...

 

Edited by Lloyd Dupont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seemed to be asking a serious question, and you got a serious answer. Which, if you've studied Physics longer than I've been born, you should know the answer to that question. If your goal was to bring it up in a humorous light, there isn't much in your message that seems to indicate that humor. You used the "surprised" emoji. Which would tend to indicate that you have a more serious take? Whatever, dude. You asked if the Big Bang violates the Laws of Conservation. It doesn't. I don't know how you wanted people to respond to that, whether a serious or humorous question...

I'm interested to hear why my nationality matters. What fun stereotypes do you plan to tout out if I am? And are you willing to have those reciprocated? Because I won't reciprocate. 

Edited by klecser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real pertinent question one could direct at me was "how dare you speak without thinking" (indeed I didn't) to which I will retort "do I really need to think seriously before saying something funny sounding!".....

But if one turns the "do I" into the "why shouldn't I" it all become clear...

It is my prejudice / stereotype that, particularly in America, the scientifically minded is constantly under assault by evangelist, anti vaxer, flat earther, etc... feeling are raw, anger is bubbling.. and one would typically not safely joke on such topics with those people (American people, that is)... 

Also, to be fair, I remember when I was 27, it was a time I chose to go to some christian group to let them see the error of their ways (unsuccessfully, I might add)... so really, I shouldn't be too surprised at your overreaction....

 

As to where is the humour in that... well if I have to explain maybe indeed it was not funny after all.... Take it as a .. I think it's called an insider joke...
It comes with the feeling of surprise at the apparent contradiction between conservation of mass and a view of the big bang such as "once there was nothing, then were was everything". I, at the very least, find that funny.

Edited by Lloyd Dupont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Also, to be fair, I remember when I was 27, it was a time I chose to go to some christian group to let them see the error of their ways (unsuccessfully, I might add)... so really, I shouldn't be too surprised at your overreaction...

I'm a scientist, and a Christian, and I've never gone to either group to explain to them the error of their ways. If you are making a faith argument, I have no problem with that whatsoever. You asked what seemed like a direct scientific question. And I gave you a scientific answer. If you didn't want a scientific answer, that is perfectly ok. Just so we're clear...I'm not saying that a scientific answer to the Big Bang is the only viable answer. Faith answers exist as well. You framed your question/humor in a scientific manner. So I responded in kind.

Methinks you're making some assumptions about my perspective. But you also haven't asked.

I also think you misinterpreted my Bio. I've been playing role-playing games for 27 years. I'm not 27 years old. I'm 42. So, I was kinda like "He knows my age and has been studying Physics for 40+ years?..." Does your argument change knowing that I'm older? Do you respect my responses more or less, knowing that I'm not 27? Really, who is being unreasonable here? Lloyd, I haven't seen anything in my life that says that age guarantees intelligence, experience or empathy. It pains me that you went directly to "young American" as the main justification for your reaction. I reacted to what you wrote. You constructed an age and nationality that fits your dislike for what I wrote. How should I respond to that? You said uni, so I should assume you're a Brit and chuck a British stereotype your way?

Edited by klecser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, klecser said:

I'm having a difficult time getting a read on your post. Because if I take it literally, and not as a joke, it seems to imply that you think that you can have a thought and suddenly invalidate the work of thousands of people thinking and observing for millions of hours. I'm optimistic that that is not the case, but I think it is worth engaging on it, because we live in a world right now where expertise is under constant attack by non-experts.

Ah, but do remember klecser, this is the tavern where we send people to get into fights, so on the off chance that he was literal, he has the right to be so here as long as he is respectful and you are under similar restrictions. Should you both disagree and get into a bit of a brouhaha, the only requirement I am aware of is the rules for respect still apply. All right now shake hands go to your corners and come out swingin’!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you probably noticed, I don't have an argument.... :P

I am just reacting to your unreasonable aggression!

I even admitted that I might be confused and it might not have been funny after all!

I won't back down on you being excessively aggressive for no good reason though... (I might have taken a needless low jab at these being "typical american behavior" sorry for stereotype, not sorry for saying you were overreacting)

Edited by Lloyd Dupont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

It is my prejudice / stereotype that, particularly in America, the scientifically minded is constantly under assault by evangelist, anti vaxer, flat earther, etc... feeling are raw, anger is bubbling.. and one would typically not safely joke on such topics with those people (American people, that is)... 

Le sigh.  Particularly, perhaps, but far from exclusively.  The Internet makes it far easier for us to be stupid worldwide.  Thanks for the special attention, though.

!i!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Le sigh.  Particularly, perhaps, but far from exclusively.  The Internet makes it far easier for us to be stupid worldwide.  Thanks for the special attention, though.

Oh I have seen the documentaries!

You know, "Escape from LA", "Escape from New York", etc ... Life is tough over there! 😛 

Edited by Lloyd Dupont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Nothing RPG related...

But it just hit me.... Doesn't the big bang broke the law of conservation of mass and energy?
Meaning that they are not really law, is it now?!  😮 

I hope the physics instructors will correct me if I'm wrong, but...

To all intents and purposes, whatever existed BEFORE the "big bang" was a different universe.  

It may have operated under different physical laws, or physical laws (relating to high-energy / matter-free systems) that no longer apply to today's observable universe.  The conditions pre-big-bang are not available now.  Whatever happened in THAT universe broke no laws of OUR universe.

We don't have any way to know about that stuff.

 

That being said... the fundamental "E=mc^2" may have obtained throughout (including conservation)!

 

Maybe there was an almost (or entirely) pure-energy (E) system THEN, with mass/energy conservation occurring across the phase-change (=) into the matter-and-energy system (mc^2) we see NOW.  The E=mc^2 equation and conservation of mass & energy may have entirely held true.

Again:  We don't have any way to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it G33k, if you had read the thread you will have seen that we already identified that this thread is neither relevant nor funny.. unfortunately...

And yeah btw.. mass was not conserved... in fact mass conservation is just an approximation.. energy conservation is the more general version... in fact even energy conservation is an approximation! :P

(as I think is video explains: 

 )

Edited by Lloyd Dupont
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lloyd, you are the one who is overreacting right now.  You posted a thread that you intended to be funny, and you worded it so subtly that the "funny" wasn't really detectable. So, I answered it seriously. And man, am I a monster for doing so, because I added a little commentary on a common issue of interpretation of expertise that you KNOW influences layperson interpretation of science, if you've studied it. And ever since that happened, rather than accepting the fact that you maybe could have worded your intentions more clearly, you've just been pitching a fit. You could have led the thread with "I've studied Physics and I find this nuance funny and interesting!"  But no. You managed to post just about the most cryptic initial post you could have given your intentions. And now you're all surprised that your precise intentions happen to not have been read correctly? Come on, man.

And @g33k, you have a solid handle on it. Don't worry. I'm never going to tease you with what I know and don't know.

Edited by klecser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must somehow just be a load of negative energy somewhere, just to balance it out. Simples. 

Now, all we have to do is find it and draw it into our Universe and see what happens ...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, g33k said:

To all intents and purposes, whatever existed BEFORE the "big bang" was a different universe.  

[Caveat: Geologist, not a quantum physicist.]

Or an "initial singularity" -- undifferentiated energy and potential matter existing at a point with no dimension.  Or is that just a single dimension?  Anyway, similar to what you say, for all intents and purposes, not our universe yet.  The laws of physics hadn't yet manifested, and perhaps could've rolled out differently under different, randomly evolving circumstances.

By the way, there are schools of quantum theory that focus on the fact that quantum phenomena exist only in a potential state and don't resolve (i.e., become decisive, manifest reality) until they are observed.  Since observation requires a conscious being, our universe exists only because it's being observed, and therefore exists precisely to support the observer, i.e., life.

There are also some quantum theories that suggest our universe still exists in a state of singularity, and perceptions of time and space are entirely subjective.

I can't really touch on higher dimensional and string theories, but others are welcome!

!i!

[Edit:  I'm not certain it's correct to state that there's no way we can know something.  Presumably, there exists a trail of evidence that can potentially be pursued, perhaps not conclusively, either now or at some point in the future.]

Edited by Ian Absentia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking seriously some physicist does postulate non energy conservation at the moment of big bang...
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-universe-dark.html

Not that I was trying to argue it seriously.. Just thinking there was a question here for the neophyte to ask.... (and a funny one at that, you know, with the apparent paradox! in fact it's only funny if one find that paradoxical)
(also the paper, while more rigorous and scientific, is not quite what I had in mind, which is less rigorous and more... perhaps biblical? maybe I should have just said "God, apparently, doesn't follow the conservation of energy") (mmm... maybe I should stop, sometimes nobody else find something funny too... 😕 ) 

Edited by Lloyd Dupont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

And that is why I love physics, who is the narrator!

I don't know the narrator, I dont even know his name!
But out of hundreds of video from PBS he does most of them. I think he is an astro physicist and they might be sponsored by BBC or something other TV network.

 

mm... here you go!
https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

But out of hundreds of video from PBS he does most of them. I think he is an astro physicist and they might be sponsored by BBC or something other TV network.

 

ell now I have cried twice today,. once with news I mention in Goodbye Christopher... and here with the treatment of this outstanding scientist (Alber Einstein called her a genius) and the gent who got the seat she deserved said he was sashlmed ashamed. It really is hard to type when crying...

Edited by Bill the barbarian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, would you believe it? I just stumble right now on another video of Dr Matt O'Dowd! 😮
Not from PBS! 
The title sounds fun though (haven't watched it yet)
Sharing (and watching) now :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...