Human science is like a peg board experiment.
Bear with me, this is gunna get complex but nowhere near as complex as the Universe.

You have a room.
On one wall there is a square hole with a painted blue square around it.
On the same wall there is a dispenser tray.
On the floor is a bunch of blue square pegs.

A toddler is the subject (if you don't like a toddler make the subject a chimp er something).

You come in, greet the toddler and offer him a single gummy bear.
He gobbles it up.
You then make sure the toddler is watching, pick up one of the blue square pegs and slip it inside the hole with the blue square around it.
There is only ever 1 hole.
A bell dings and a single gummy bear falls onto the dispenser.
You reach in, get the gummy and give it to the child.
after he gobbles it up you point at another square blue peg.
The child picks it up.
You point at the square blue box on the wall.
The child inserts the peg into the hole and a bell dings and a single gummy pops out onto the dispenser tray.
The child grabs the gummy and gobbles it up.
You exist the room.
The child then inserts every square blue peg into the hole in the wall and gets a ding and a gummy each time.

The toddler is removed from the room.
The room is reset.
The square hole on the wall is still there but now there is no blue square around it.
There is an assortment of pegs on the floor with different colors but the square peg is still blue.
The toddler is put back into the room but you stay outside, out of sight.
The toddler tries a few pegs but they will not fit and they are not blue.
Then the toddler tries the blue square peg in the square hole in the wall and the bell dings and he gets another gummy.

The toddler is removed from the room.
The room is reset.
The square hole on the wall is still there but now there is a blue square around it again.
There is an assortment of pegs on the floor with different colors but the square peg is now red.
The toddler is put back into the room but you stay outside, out of sight.
The child immediately tries the blue circle peg in the wall but it won't fit.
He tries peg after peg with no ding and no gummy.
He finally picks up the red square peg and ends up with a ding and a gummy.

The toddler is removed from the room.
The room is reset.
The square hole on the wall is still there but now there is no blue square around it.
There is an assortment of pegs on the floor but all pegs are blue.
The toddler is put back into the room but you stay outside, out of sight.
The child tries every peg till he gets a gummy but this time, no ding.

The toddler is removed from the room.
The room is reset.
The square hole on the wall is still there but now there is no blue square around it.
There is an assortment of pegs on the floor but they are slices of the pegs.
The square peg must be assembled before being inserted in the wall.
The child attempts to insert one square slice into the wall, it fits but its very loose.
No ding, No gummy.
The child must learn to assemble the small square pegs into the square peg which fits the hole.
Nobody shows him how to do it.
He tries and tries but no ding, no gummy till the assembled square peg is inserted.

The variations on this peg test can go on for quite some time.
As the child succeeds, his knowledge and understanding increase.
Each deviation requires the ability to think in a way he didn't before.
Each win confirms his understanding.
Each loss hinders his progress but increases his understanding of what doesn't work.

Right now, science is the child trying to put pegs in a wall.
Its gaining ground and getting its ding and gummy bear but at a slow pace.

As we grow in understanding we tackle harder and harder science.
But we are still toddlers playing with pegs.

If we ignore the unknown or assume it can't be, we lose part of our knowledge needed to uncover new concepts.

If we never look at something or dismiss it too soon, we hinder our progress.
Science can be wrong and still be science.
At one time, we didn't know what an atom was.
Then, as our knowledge and understanding grew we eventually split that atom.
Now we know particles exist.
We are still trying pegs in the hole but now we found new particles.
If we stop, we stagnate.
So, we keep looking for more particles and continue to put pegs in the wall.
The atom and the particles always existed only we did not possess the knowledge and understanding.

The main difference is we never had anyone show us.
We had to figure it all out on our own.
We did that by using our imagination.
We did that by seeing reality and asking ...
Why?

There are three temperature scales in use today, Fahrenheit, Celsius and Kelvin.
When an object is heated, its atoms can move with different levels of energy, from low to high. ... At the physically impossible-to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius), atoms would stop moving

Every type of particle has a corresponding antiparticle;

the positron is the antiparticle of the electron
the antiproton is the antiparticle of the proton
the antineutron is the antiparticle of the neutron
the antineutrino is the antiparticle of the neutrino

matter is made up of particles, antiparticles and bosons

When a particle and its antiparticle meet each other they annihilate each other. Their mass is converted into energy in the form of photons.

Baryons – always contain 3 quarks. For example a proton contains the quarks, up up down. Whereas an antiproton contains the quarks, antiup antiup antidown.

Mesons – always contain 2 quarks ( a quark and an antiquark). For example the p+meson contains the quarks, up and antidown.

The constituents of the atom are protons, neutrons and electrons. The protons and neutrons (nucleons) are found in the nucleus of atoms. The nucleus of an atom is surrounded by empty space in which there are electrons.

Hadrons are the heaviest particles. This group is then split up into baryons and mesons. Baryons are the heaviest particles of all, followed by mesons.
Leptons are the lightest particles.

Source: http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/particles-radiation/particles-antiparticles-photons/

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80568/is-there-scale-by-size-of-all-discovered-particles

Tho I don't agree with it...

At absolute zero, atoms would occupy the lowest energy state. At an infinite temperature, atoms would occupy all energy states. Negative temperatures then are the opposite of positive temperatures — atoms more likely occupy high-energy states than low-energy states.

Source: http://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

Why I don't agree:

Scientific absolute zero (AZ) is not true absolute zero.
At AZ, atoms stop moving (frozen).
But, the particles of those atoms have spin.
If the particles have movement the atom is not at AZ.
At true absolute zero, the atom would be invisible (no longer detected) because any movement is heat. We detect the heat of an atom.
If a photon strikes an atom at true AZ, it will cause heat(movement) and that heat will cause the particles to spin.
So, the act of detecting interrupts / prevents true AZ.

I believe it was an interruption of true AZ that started the Universe.
Heat/movement is a reaction to something.
I have no idea what that something might be?
The Universe is a chain reaction to something that interrupted true AZ.
It makes sense to me.

How?

Astronomers observed that light from distant objects in the universe is redshifted (shift in the frequency of light towards red color), which tells us that the objects are all receding away from us. This is true in whatever direction you look at: all the distant galaxies are going away from us. This can only be due to the fact that the Universe is expanding.

Source: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/626-how-is-it-proved-that-the-universe-is-expanding-intermediate

I disagree:
in whatever direction you look at: all the distant galaxies are going away from us
This would mean our detector is at the center of the Universe.
I'm sorry but I do not believe we are the center of the Universe.
Move the detector a billion years that way and look at the distant galaxies.
If they are all moving away from the detector and the detector is now in the center of the Universe, this theory will be wrong.
You can't have two centers of the Universe.

Since redshift is a longer wavelength of light it might appear everything is moving away from us but the source could be longer in wavelength.
Perhaps the early Universe was red?
Perhaps there is a quality to light which causes it to redshift as it ages.
Perhaps the redshift is a result of implosion by something we don't know?
Relative to us, we are talking about light that is billions of years old.
To know for sure, we would need to observe light for billions of years.
Don't ask me how that could be done? LOL

Everything we think we know is relative to us on this planet, at this time.
Redshift does make sense because we exist in a Universe which has entropy.
It doesn't prove the Universe is expanding. It only proves the light has longer wavelength.

You've put your finger on the bit that was worrying me. As you say, it would appear that we are the centre of the universe and I too am not comfortable with that. Easier to believe that if we had a human outpost on a planet hundreds of light years from year, those humans would see exactly the same we see. But of course there cannot be two centres.

Up till now, I've been happy to accept what those clever university graduate scientists tell me, but now I want to ask that question of one of them, or at least try to find a research paper that makes the same point, and hopefully has a possible answer. Problem is, that answer would no doubt be explained using mathematics way beyond anything I could undertand!

Best I can come up with is to ask why we would need to be at the centre? If a train is passing you it would appear to be moving away from you. But to people on the train, from their viewpoint, you would appear to be moving away from them. People on the train would feel that they are at the centre and the ground is moving away from them. Is this moving away of stars phenomenon not a three dimensional version of the train?

Just my tuppence worth!

i wonder if we need to examine this a bit more?

quark1

any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.


so, we only "theoretically" believe quarks exist?

i think Science goes down many paths in Blind Faith very much like Religion. and in some instances, it's possible, Science is just making it up.

and i am not saying i am not buying that quarks exist, even if based upon by accidental experiments. i'm just pointing out, that is one loophole or noose to claim, for something they believe exists, by them manipulating the experiments but never seeing the needed/required results in natural state of existence.

and since this thread relates to the BBT, what do you feel about this copy/paste from alternative scientific explanations?



The Big Bang itself is a scientific theory and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations.[2] However, as a theory which addresses the nature of the universe since its earliest discernible existence, the Big Bang carries possible theological implications regarding the concept of creation out of nothing.[3][4][5] Many atheist philosophers have argued against the idea of the Universe having a beginning - the Universe might simply have existed for all eternity, but with the emerging evidence of the Big Bang theory, many theologians and physicists have viewed it as implicating theism;[6][7] a popular philosophical argument for the existence of God known as the Kalam cosmological argument rests in the concepts of the Big Bang.[8][9]

I said this on the first page of this thread:

"I have always been a fan of sine waves. Applying this idea to the universe conveniently gets rid of having to say that time itself started at the big bang. Instead the size of the universe varies as a sine wave. At the moment we are at the expansion phase. If my theory is right the universe will one day reach a maximum size and then begin to shrink. Eventually it will be smaller than a pin head and with an almighty explosion, it all starts again. In true sinewave fashion, the next time around there will be more anti-matter than matter. I doubt our science will ever be able to prove that one way or the other, unless the human race continues to live past the point when the maximum size is reached and the universe starts to shrink."

I quite like this idea, but of course it is nothing more than a possibility. As there is no hope of ever being able to prove it, this is nothing more than a curiosity!

and that makes perfect sense to me, MK, excellent point.

We are very fortunate to have such brilliant minds among us. It gives life to the forums. And either way, if it is imploding from an outside source or expanding, it is all over my head, like the heavens.

Narlycarnk, nobody actually knows.
It all boils down to the belief one might have, same as religion.
I am merely supposing a possibility other than the established rhetoric.
I doubt my ideas have any more substance than the Big Bang believers.
It is meant as a double look to make people say, well, what if?


Well, if you actually think about it...Time started BEFORE the Big Bang.
Time is not minutes or seconds. It isn't micro-seconds or pico-seconds.
Time is duration.
Duration is the change between one static state and the next static state.
It begins as soon as the static state starts to change.
'Starts to change' is relative.
Starts to change is the moment the static state is no longer a static state.
Perhaps the frame rate is less than a gogolplex of a pico-second.
We don't know because our minds can't think that fast.
What is the speed of time?
Is there a duritron that governs time?
What is the properties of a duritron?

One thing is sure, the Universe (and time) started the moment there was a change of static state.
I propose a change from true absolute zero to a condition of heat (movement).
I don't know where and I don't know when and I don't know how but to me, it makes the most sense.
The reaction of that change, explains everything we see in reality right now.
A chain reaction from that initial change of state.
Could it be a cascade reaction?
Might one event, one change in static state initiate chain reactions on different planes giving rise to multiple dimensions?
Is our Universe but one variation on a multitude of reactions?
From a single change of state?


The keyword is discernible.
Discernible to whom?
To us?
At what point does anyone think humans are the authority on the Universe?
We are mere infants in the scheme of things.
As much as we might think we know about reality we are still playing with pegs on a pegboard.
We can't even figure ourselves out, let alone the Universe.
We don't even understand the small planet we live on.
We guess and suppose and assume.
But, that's our science.
They still think they are the center of the Universe because redshift says so. Hahaha
Silly humans...


Maybe not?
Perhaps all I did was look at it from a different perspective?
Same thing I am doing with the Anti-Big Bang and the White Singularity.

People are so willing to be lead, they can't form their own opinions.
Some scientist says there was a big bang and the Universe is exploding and suddenly, everyone is agreeing without thinking about it.
Some scientist names something a black hole and suddenly black holes exist.
Some guy suggests a religion and suddenly everyone believes in God.

An event horizon is an event...horizon.
It doesn't mean every event horizon is the light-wave event horizon.
Event horizon means, at that horizon, something changes.
There is a mass event horizon.
There is a gravity event horizon.
The gravity event horizon is not when light-waves are captured by gravity.
The Sun and the Earth are in gravity event horizons.
We call it orbit but it is an event horizon.

Can ya'll say...gullible?


It does but probably not in the context you imagine?
The blind faith of science is based on observation and testing.
What many fail to understand is we exist in a constantly changing Universe.
Science is a constantly changing study.
The blind faith of science often leads to new science.
The blind faith of religion stagnates.
Where science is open to ask why, religion does not want you to ask why.
This thread is not about religion.
This thread is about why and what if?
The very opposite of religion.
Religion works best if nobody questions it where science works best if everybody questions it.
It is the questioning of science that unlocks knowledge and understanding of the reality in which we exist.
Its just really slow and fraught with mistakes.


This is relativity.
I suspect relativity gets in the way a lot in science.
Relativity could be adversely affecting all parts of physical science.

Lemme splain;

All fundamental laws of physics are laws determined by our observations and tests in this part of space at this time in the Universe.
We have absolutely no data from any 'other' place in the Universe but we assume our laws are universal.
We Can't Know if they are Universal.
We only assume they are based on our observations and tests at this point in space and time.

Your train scenario works relative to two specific observations.
However, what if the observer is looking down on the continent.
The relative observation has no meaning to that observer.
Consider an F-22 relative observation of the train.
It flies by at Mach 4 and the train is not moving at all?
Its all relative.

You are having BBQ.
You strike a match and light the charcoal on fire.
You do this 400 times but on one day, the match did not light.
Do you see this as the match always lights?
Do you see it as a match lights on a ratio of 400 to 1?
What if the new match does not light?
Oh, well these matches got wet. What if they didn't?
What if the matches are the same set of matches you previously lit your BBQ with?
So, who says the fundamental laws of the Universe are universal?
Some guy that won a Nobel award from other guys?
Move the observation point and fundamental becomes relative.

I have many discussions on science fiction websites concerning the believabiliy of aliens. My assertion of relativity always stumps.
See, an alien, born, raised and subjected to its own world is going to have very little in common with critters (including humans) born, raised and subjected to Earth conditions. There are too many variables.
This is why I like aliens that are nothing like any life on Earth.
Because it won't be like any life on Earth.
Then, there is the assumption that just because an alien race is advanced means it has the same value systems as we do.
It is the boon of science to assume anything.

When considering things happening in our relative neck of the woods we can safely assume some things.
When we start to consider things beyond our relativity we lock our minds into the given belief. The big bang, black holes, event horizons, redshift...
All I am sayin is to open your mind and stop believing everything yer told about everything.
This goes for science or religion...

yes, Tom, i most certainly agree that if the Universe is calculated from the Big Bang at 13 Billions years, then it's possible the time before the Big Bang could be literally trillions or older.

Here, lemme play with yer head a bit.
Its relative to relativity.

With the weather change my nose has been running.
I've been coughing.
Its not snot, its brain sweat.
My nose is a brain drain.

Consider this...

Say this out loud.
Its not snot. Its not, really, its mucus.
Now, say it again but listen to yourself...

Snot snot. Snot, really, its mucus.
Never try this after smoking weed...

In trying to convince someone else its not snot it just comes out snot snot.

if the process after the Bang is still continuing after 13 Billion years, how long would a single proton/neutron/electron dividing and multiplying to the point of literally affecting Space to shrink, expand, and then to finally internally combust into complete annihilation of its original state of existence...

...how long would that process take to build up to the point when it annihilates, it simulates the same original Big Bang?

if the expansion is 13 Billion years and counting, the building point was also counting in years, just to the point of detonation.

so how long do we want to guess it took for that entire process to initiate, build, and then complete the purpose?

Okay, I get yer meaning and yes, trillions or quintillions.
Just don't assume its trillions or quintillions of years because years are relative to us and we did not exist and neither did the Earth or the Sun.
When given an unknown like this, people tend to assume that which we relate to.
We all know what a year is but years are only relative to us and the Earth at this point in time.

A light year is the distance it takes light to travel in a year.
So 13.7 billion light years is the distance it took light to travel in 13.7 billion years.
It is entirely our own measurement.
A species with a year that is different from ours will have a different measure.
This means the number is only significant to us at this point in time.
At one time in the Earth's history, a year was different. At some point in our future a year will be different still.
We live in a dynamic Universe in constant change.
A solar year is the time it takes the Earth to complete its orbit around the Sun — about one year. But the actual time it takes for the Earth to travel around the Sun is in fact a little longer than that—about 365 ¼ days (365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, to be precise)
Right now.

At one time, the Earth's day was shorter than what we measure now.
1.7 billion years ago the day was 21 hours long.
In 200 Million Years, Days Will Be 25 Hours Long.
How accurate is any distance measured against a year?
Which year?

While significant changes in a year or a day are easy to consider it is much more difficult to realize every second of every day is changing the length of a year. Perhaps an insignificant amount of time but science tries to be precise so how can any science state anything based on a day or a year as an irrefutable fact?
It is an approximation.
It is a value which is relative to us and it is an approximation.

I'm only attempting to get people to realize belief in science is the same thing as belief in religion.
People work so hard to deny each when each has relative merit and relative assumption.
The only way to rectify either is to realize reality is not exactly bound to either.

Where science trumps religion, in my opinion, is the fact in science What If is embraced.
Its the ever-present need to know why.
Religion wants compliance, acceptance and conformity where science want answers and challenges the mind to find out more.

Consider the atom (or particle) which initiated the Universe.
That atom (or particle, whatever) may have existed in a true absolute zero condition for any period of time.
The significant event occurred at any time.
When the event caused heat that vibrated the atom (particle, whatever) a chain of duration was initiated. A chain of state changes relative to the previous state. It created time by creating a duration of state changes.

That's all time is...a series of changes in state relative to the previous state. It happens faster than we can measure but we can see snapshots of it when we take a picture.
Imagine a camera with a shutter speed of a billion quadrillionth of Planck.
If you were to line up pictures from this camera you wouldn't be able to detect changes but those changes would be there all the same.

If duration existed before the change of state, it could be a billion quadrillionth of Planck or a billion quadrillion seconds.
It doesn't matter except to say duration (time) existed first.

Then you gotta consider nothing existed and the change of state initiated matter.
I have no idea what the mechanism would be, call it God or random chance.
We will NEVER be able to measure or observe anything before the Universe existed because time was not moving (my guess).

Not being able to observe or measure anything outside the Universe means it could be expanding, contracting or in a steady state.
Not fer sure.
What we see is locked to our own relativity from within the Universe.
Time is relative to our ability to measure or observe changes of state.
From within the Universe.

right, i am just pointing out:
to begin with a single nucleus that resulted in the blast that we call our current state of existence some 13 Billion years later, on this tiny Planet, stuck somewhere in the vast midst of the Universe, must require considerably more time to build than it has been the result. and i said trillions or more, because not knowing the original dimensions of Space for it to be completely filled to beyond max capacity, and then annihilated to maybe create an ever growing SPACE outside of the ever growing Universe. we could be talking numbers we have not pushed our mathematics to!!


and then, like the Kobe Telescope Expedition revealed in the Scientific Presentation, to which Krauss is now claiming to BUY, there was no nucleus of energy/Singularity/Laws of Physics, it was clear Space when a light so bright just flashes and suddenly the Laws of Physics take place and masses begin attracting and forming Galaxies and such until we get to modern day status.
^
but even in this scenario, we still have the result equaling 13 Billion years.
^
but, that still leaves us with how long was Space, void, empty, clear of NOTHING before the Light so Bright appears from Nowhere and suddenly ALL LAWS go into effect and the formation of our Universe begins simultaneously from one end to the other.
^
the one given according to the video presentation of the KOBE Expedition, is that Space was already in existence.
^
and that could lead to, how long was it from the time Space was Created or somehow began before this Bright Light of obvious annihilation taking place or whatever else can be imagined since it was pure Light?


but in which ever we can pick from, we still have an existing Universe at 13 Billion years old. it's the before the Light taking place that we are just flat out clueless about!!

An assumption, guess, speculation, fantasy...
Any guess is as valid as the next within reason.

Consider this:
The universal laws of physics are laws in this Universe (as far as we know).
Before the Universe existed the laws of this Universe didn't exist yet(or did they?).
Perhaps what existed before the Universe was side-real matter. Not matter or anti-matter, something else. Perhaps this side-real state of matter had completely different laws governing it, with different interactions, forces and variances.

Perhaps what existed before the Universe was a rubber duck.
We can't go there (then?) to observe, take measurements or perform tests.
We can't know.
It isn't a matter of not knowing yet, we can never know.

Another thing we can never know is the shape of the Universe from an outside view. Not only can we not move outside the Universe, the act of trying makes the Universe that much bigger.
This is because we are part of the Universe. We are made of the Universe.
Our thoughts, beliefs, imagination is part of the Universe. When we dream, it is the Universe dreaming.
The voids between atomic nucleus where electrons orbit, the quantum field state between probabilities, the great voids bewteen super-cluster galaxies, everything we can test, observe, fathom or dream is within this Universe.
Our minds are a product of the Universe existing.

If the universe started from nothing, it makes sense that the beginning would be an asymptotic, gradual one rather than a discreet, all-from-nothing start. Maybe a cloud was created with 12 dimensions and is collapsing or doing something strange from the edge surface.

Hadda look up Asympototic.
The term asymptotic means approaching a value or curve arbitrarily closely (i.e., as some sort of limit is taken).

When the Universe began it was not asympototic.
Everything was unique.
It established all values because prior to that, there was no established parameters.

As for multiple dimensions, it is possible.
12 is a limited parameter tho.
Think billions.

What is significant is the fact we do not know (for sure) if all this happened in a collapse or and expansion.
We see it as an expansion but our view could be jaded by relativity.

The ONLY way o actually know for sure is to step outside the Universe and observe its action, which is impossible because we are a product of the Universe and no matter where we go, its the Universe going.
If we step 1 foot outside the Universe, the Universe expands to encompass us.
Nobody understands the physical laws which might exist outside the Universe.
To speculate I would need to consider any possible deviation from established universal laws.
We could step outside and fly apart at the speed of light or faster.
Just one of billions of possible reactions.
At any rate, we would find it impossible to report back any findings we might observe.

Who can say for sure?
We might step out and see the Universe shrinking rapidly to a single point before it ends in a fizzle.
Time might not work the same way out there.
One second to us might be trillions of years outside looking in.
Our Universe may actually be just a flash of light.
Consider that.
Its all relativity.