Help to understand the Big Bang

[hamster_nz]

"Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose is an interesting read on the subject. More pages than Lord of the Rings though!

Large parts of it fly way way over my head, but bits of it are very understandable and enlightening. For example, discussion on entropy is well worthwhile.

My own worthless take on it is that it somehow relates to there being more negative binary numbers than positive ones. If you smooth a out a field of random signed binary numbers you end up with a small negative bias. To me this seems very much like the small quantum-level biases in the big bang that allowed more matter than antimatter in the otherwise uniform early universe.

[Mechatrommer]

the smallest issue still cant be answered... nothing made universe... universe made astronomers. cosmological selection?

Is there point somewhere here in this nonsense? If there is, can you please explain it for us that don't understand sentence fragments?

All I see is a video of Richard Dawkins, heavily edited by a cretin. Again, please explain...

if i'm allowed, i'll explain in details, but... anyway, its going to be way off topic albeit we have to go to the great depth of science. in short he (Lawrence guy) talked as if its that easy for "universe created astronomers" connotation to prove his "offtopic" point, not much more a sound from that wormy hole i hear. here's the unedited... but dont expect much more from it though...

explanation (is this hoax?) https://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again

search positive mutation. can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels? (can we assume big bang is a big chaotic hurricane? or what?) another golden question will be intermediary creations/fossils of "our" (or others, pick one you like) ancestor... where are they? the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc there are many more simpler questions than a big bang. well this is off topic i know, but i hate where there is BS slipped in, esp from people who claimed their works and statements are based on empirical study. but i guess its just "popular misunderstanding", you may do your own homework from there, good luck...

[timelessbeing]

Completely off topic. But Dawkins is 100% correct in the non-edited version of the video you posted.

can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels?

No. That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with our scientific understanding. How did you come up with it?

fossils of "our"  ancestor... where are they?

Spreading out from Africa. But I'm sure you knew about that.

the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc

Can you please complete your sentence fragments? Is this a question or statement? ...

there are many more simpler questions than a big bang.

Yes there are ....

i hate where there is BS slipped in.

What is BS?

i guess its just "popular misunderstanding"

What is? The big bang? Natural evolution? Are you trying to make an argument, because I'm very confused.

you may do your own homework from there

About what? What are you even talking about ? ? ? ?

[Mechatrommer]

Completely off topic. But Dawkins is 100% correct in the non-edited version of the video you posted.

yes he is correct, but not answering the question, typical..

can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels?

No. That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with our scientific understanding. How did you come up with it?

now you are being insulting what idiotic about that? what existed after the big bang? birds? proteins?

fossils of "our"  ancestor... where are they?

Spreading out from Africa. But I'm sure you knew about that.

show me. it must be in the net already.

the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc

Can you please complete your sentence fragments? Is this a question or statement? ...

i need to know how first protein was synthesized. in other word... how to synthensize a protein from not protein?

What is BS?
What is? The big bang? Natural evolution? Are you trying to make an argument, because I'm very confused.
About what? What are you even talking about ? ? ? ?

doesnt matter, i think wont that really important to you. you have your life, i have mine, each of us responsible for our own. you are waiting i'm also waiting. cheers

[Mr. Scram]

i'm not a relativistic expert but the way i see... time is our own definition... one may invent or call whatever they like but its nothing more than just a... "the occurence between two observable/senseable events" some atomic clock in our case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard . since it is based on some tangible matter, "our" definition of time does not exist when there is no "matter". but if we change definition of time to something "unobservable", then there is time, it just different kind of time. we (the holy grail of scientists) just created our own "frame of reference" and play around it. when euclid played around flat plane of reference (sum of internal angles of a triangle is 180 degree), another scientists created curved type space reference and found out internal angles sum is 270 degree, now euclidan space collapsed, of course it collapse you genius! time, just like space may warp just like doppler effect, atomic oscillate differently relatively between 2 objects at different speed, hence our time is also relative, because we define time from something that exists in "space" (or matter) axis

otoh, talking about emptiness, that genius Lawrence Kauss talked about energy that existed (dark or not dark regardless) around those "emptiness" in the beginning of "time" to create that big bang in the first place, the golden question is... where do those energies comes from? oh i forgot... there are 2 possibilities...
1) they always be (omnipotent or omnipresent or whatnot)... so that ruled out ID...
2) they are from nothing... similar to this universe. so there is no ID involved.
right!

ps: why the heck i'm looking at this section, yeah last night i got 502 bd gateways, so i looked around what happened. so it seems big bang happened 

I probably should have been more clear in my previous post, but space and time seem to be intertwined into space-time. They don't really seem separable. Changing the definition to "something" unobservable doesn't work when nothing was.

I second timelessbeing. Can you please express yourself in less fragmented sentences? This is quite hard to follow.

[Mr. Scram]

Can we please not make this into another one of those threads? This is about the Big Bang, not about how amino acids make proteins or the evolution of our recent and distant ancestors. Both are easily found with a minimum of effort.

[T3sl4co1l]

Your mistake was giving in to mechatrommer trolling.

Tim

[Mechatrommer]

not about how amino acids make proteins

how to synthensize amino acid then? from non biological or non proteinous source?

or the evolution of our recent and distant ancestors. Both are easily found with a minimum of effort.

i'm talking about in between, in the middle, and earlier middle (1st quarter), and later/after middle (3 quarter), or anything in between. i got a few samples already in billions of years thank you. a definitive link will help, i need to learn

Your mistake was giving in to mechatrommer trolling.

yeah i was trolled by a video by so called scientist/astronomer. when something wrong can happen it must happen do you experienced 502 error few hours ago? isitjustme said its not just me. it should be on daylight in your place? when that happened

[timelessbeing]

Completely off topic. But Dawkins is 100% correct in the non-edited version of the video you posted.

yes he is correct, but not answering the question, typical..

alright. In a clear way, can you please present your question, and the relevance to the topic?

can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels?

No. That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with our scientific understanding. How did you come up with it?

now you are being insulting what idiotic about that? what existed after the big bang? birds? proteins?

You do not seem to know the meaning of the word insult. I did not insult you.
Nobody suggested that anything evolved out of a rock. That is just stupid.
What existed after the big bang? subatomic particles, quark-gluon plasma, then atomic nuclei, electrons, finally atoms, molecules etc... There's plenty of material about it. I don't need to point it out.

fossils of "our"  ancestor... where are they?

Spreading out from Africa. But I'm sure you knew about that.

show me. it must be in the net already.

It is. Search "Lucy"

the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc

Can you please complete your sentence fragments? Is this a question or statement? ...

i need to know how first protein was synthesized. in other word... how to synthensize a protein from not protein?

There are theories, which I'm sure you're capable of finding yourself. I won't go into it because it's off topic.

What is BS?
What is? The big bang? Natural evolution? Are you trying to make an argument, because I'm very confused.
About what? What are you even talking about ? ? ? ?

doesnt matter, i think wont that really important to you. you have your life, i have mine, each of us responsible for our own. cheers

Cheers. If it's not important to you, then perhaps consider NOT POSTING next time.

[timelessbeing]

how to synthensize amino acid then? from non biological or non proteinous source?

what does it have to do with big bang?

i'm talking about in between, in the middle, and earlier middle (1st quarter), and later/after middle (3 quarter), or anything in between. i got a few samples already in billions of years thank you. a definitive link will help, i need to learn

Between what? middle of what? what quarters? What are you even babbling about and what does it have to do with the big bang?

i was trolled by a video by so called scientist/astronomer.

Who? Can you be any more vague, Mechatroller?

[Mr. Scram]

Your mistake was giving in to mechatrommer trolling.

Tim

So it was.

[onesixright]

I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there. 

Always hated it. Especially that stupid tune !

Then after I watched it a few times, more because it was just coming up and I was to lazy to crap the remote. I actually started to like it. Now I love it, even seen everything multiple times ...

So I guess, a guilty pleasure here

[sainbablo]

Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?

[onesixright]

Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?

The TV show? Yes. 

[srce]

Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?

The closest we can get currently is the cosmic microwave background - which is an image of the universe 380,000 years after the big bang:



(Ignore the purple bit - that's our galaxy getting in the way).

Optical (EM) telescopes probably wont be able to see further back than that, as before then, the universe was opaque to light.

However, in the future, a neutrino-based telescope may be able to see further back in time. The cosmic neutrino background would be an image of the universe when just 1 second old.

[sainbablo]

Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?

The closest we can get currently is the cosmic microwave background - which is an image of the universe 380,000 years after the big bang:



(Ignore the purple bit - that's our galaxy getting in the way).

Optical (EM) telescopes probably wont be able to see further back than that, as before then, the universe was opaque to light.

However, in the future, a neutrino-based telescope may be able to see further back in time. The cosmic neutrino background would be an image of the universe when just 1 second old.

Despite our best efforts  to "explain" Big Bang, the explainations short of  observations in  real  time, remain clouded as assumptions, conjecture, guesswork , suppostions and  open to questions owing to non avaialabilty  of  data of observations  of  the  actual event of Big Bang
We  have  a premise( a theory) , but  no authenticated observations therefore the  conclusion drawn fail to  satisfy  the run of logic.

So by dint of  which  log shall I  accept Big Bang in 2019

[Buriedcode]

Despite our best efforts  to "explain" Big Bang, the explainations short of  observations in  real  time, remain clouded as assumptions, conjecture, guesswork , suppostions and  open to questions owing to non avaialabilty  of  data of observations  of  the  actual event of Big Bang
We  have  a premise( a theory) , but  no authenticated observations therefore the  conclusion drawn fail to  satisfy  the run of logic.

Gonna have to agree with you there.  There is a careful balance in discussions of physics between asking questions to understand a theory, and actively criticizing current theories.  If one criticizes a current theory, there is the very valid point that one simply doesn't understand it.  But at the same time, science requires criticism. 

I cannot claim to understand much of cosmology, or the standard model, but that doesn't stop me and others having to point out the long list of assumptions that current theories rest on.  Granted these aren't just random, and have good reasoning behind them, but again that doesn't necessarily mean they should be accepted.  Theories such as the big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, block holes (we haven't actually directly observed one yet) are not exactly completely solid, but have been around so long that many are just accepted as fact.  I'm not suggesting they aren't true, just that there are varying degree's of certainty for each one.

In the past couple of decades, at least since I've been interested in modern physics, theories have come and gone, but the ones that stuck are essentially untestable.  Aside from the higgs, and perhaps gravitation waves from LIGO, what new discoveries have been made in the past say 30 years?

[timelessbeing]

Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?

Excuse me but did anyone see atoms and molecules?

Did anyone see electrons? Electronics is actually just a big hoax. 

[T3sl4co1l]

Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?

Excuse me but did anyone see atoms and molecules?

Did anyone see electrons? Electronics is actually just a big hoax. 

Yes.



Though according to current theory, electrons are literally all we see, and are*, and electrons are indistinguishable so you can't know if the electron wot dunnit just teleported into your eye or if it was actually waves and all that...

*In the sense that electronic interactions determine the properties of ordinary matter around STP.

Tim

[timelessbeing]

"you’re seeing light emitted from an atom and not the atom itself"
- David Nadlinger, a quantum physicist and PhD candidate at Oxford University, is the person who put it all together.

Good try though.

[glarsson]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)

[timelessbeing]

Yup some electron microscopy there. Good find. But we came up with this contraption long after we knew about the atom

 

[glarsson]

Yup some electron microscopy there.

Scanning tunneling microscope, not electron microscope. Not the same thing.

[timelessbeing]

Scanning tunneling microscope, not electron microscope. Not the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope#Scanning_transmission_electron_microscope_(STEM)

Well wiki considers the tunneler as a type of electron microscope, and so do I. Totally relevant to the point as well, good job. 

[apis]

It is a good point. A lot of people weren't convinced atoms really existed until Einstein published his famous paper on Brownian motion in 1905 (that's only 114 years ago).

In the end everything comes down to measurements and logical deduction. Even when seeing things with our own eyes, we're relying on our built in optical sensor arrays (which btw are very poor and unreliable, especially when combined with our even less reliable built in computer/memory). People come up with a lot of hypotheses, then we make experiments trying to disprove them (gather data) and in the end the hypothesis that best matches the data is the one we keep.

It's the same with the big bang, it's the best theory that matches the data from the measurements and experiments we've made. That is also why saying that there was no spacetime before the big bang is bogus, since there is no evidence of that, all we know is that it appears that the universe was once very very dense and very very hot, but whatever happened before that is a complete mystery and will likely remain so for a very very long time.