-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.
Age of Universe - Big Bang theory is childish and wrong
- Thread starter Juhazi
- Start date
Quantum mechanics requires one to suspend all common sense and real-world experience, and instead, trust the math (which happens to be very good at making predictions). If you try to interpret QM in terms of real-world phenomena that we are familiar with, you'll quickly realize that it makes no sense at all. Probability wave functions in place of particles, collapse of wave function when observed, universe splitting into trillions of copies of itself every second, all of them existing simultaneously, quantum entanglement at a distance, etc., etc. etc. Reality is much, much stranger than fiction.
It was a hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
OP
Thread Starter
#68
Thread Starter
#68
Actually that "childish and wrong" was a provocation to open up this discussion. And this category is "Fun topics, videos, etc."
But I cincerily have hard times to understand the conclusion of having nothing but immaterial quantum fluctuation at single point in space, and then all these rocks and gasballs expanding and flying around. Multiverse kind of explanation is better in my opinion.
Discussion and research are important, despite the final goal/truth remains undisclosed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein )
But I cincerily have hard times to understand the conclusion of having nothing but immaterial quantum fluctuation at single point in space, and then all these rocks and gasballs expanding and flying around. Multiverse kind of explanation is better in my opinion.
Discussion and research are important, despite the final goal/truth remains undisclosed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein )
Last edited:
I more and more think that we live in simulation. There are way too many cases of "intuition". Couple of examples from my life:
1. I live in US while my sister, brother, mom are in Russia. I decided to send to one of the kids a red RC car as a gift. I also watch regularly "funny videos" on Youtube. The day I sent the package, one of the videos featured a grown up guy receiving similarly looking, red(!) RC car in a package.
2. As I was returning from airport not long ago, I picked up one of the free magazine, which advertises local shops/businesses/communities. It had a lady rock-climbing on its front page. I didn't pay much attention to it. Couple of days later my sister sent me some pics of her kids rock-climbing. Then I paid my attention to the mag. Astonished.
1. I live in US while my sister, brother, mom are in Russia. I decided to send to one of the kids a red RC car as a gift. I also watch regularly "funny videos" on Youtube. The day I sent the package, one of the videos featured a grown up guy receiving similarly looking, red(!) RC car in a package.
2. As I was returning from airport not long ago, I picked up one of the free magazine, which advertises local shops/businesses/communities. It had a lady rock-climbing on its front page. I didn't pay much attention to it. Couple of days later my sister sent me some pics of her kids rock-climbing. Then I paid my attention to the mag. Astonished.
Here are some interesting things I found online that sparked my interest.
Wigners friend:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
Quantum foam:
Furthermore I found out I was misinformed about some scientific facts that later turned out to be different from what I was told at school. A good example is E=mc2, that formula is not complete and actually misses the very important Lorentz Factor and also does not work for photons.
Due to that misunderstanding I wrongly thought that when you accelerated closer to the speed of light that your mass would increase so increasingly more energy was needed to further accelerate, that turned out to be false. What actually happens when you get closer to the speed of light is that your local time compared to your point of origin gets relatively slower hence why increasingly more (longer) local energy input is needed to further increase the relative speed compared to your point of origin. This new information completely changed my long standing view of space-time.
I keep wondering what more I missed.
Wigners friend:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
Quantum foam:
Furthermore I found out I was misinformed about some scientific facts that later turned out to be different from what I was told at school. A good example is E=mc2, that formula is not complete and actually misses the very important Lorentz Factor and also does not work for photons.
Due to that misunderstanding I wrongly thought that when you accelerated closer to the speed of light that your mass would increase so increasingly more energy was needed to further accelerate, that turned out to be false. What actually happens when you get closer to the speed of light is that your local time compared to your point of origin gets relatively slower hence why increasingly more (longer) local energy input is needed to further increase the relative speed compared to your point of origin. This new information completely changed my long standing view of space-time.
I keep wondering what more I missed.
Well, most multiverse theories are also based on what you describe as "immaterial quantum fluctuation at single point in space" in your perception of the Big Bang explanations and are seen by some as the logical consequence of those "immaterial quantum fluctuation at single point in space".
On top of that, they don't exclude the Big Bang. I fact some of them imply or require an infinite number of Big Bangs.
And they don't even exclude simulation btw, because if a universe could be simulated, why not simulate an infinity of them?
Saying one doesn't like the Big Bang and prefers a multiverse theory is a bit like saying one doesn't like the H2O molecule but one enjoys drowning.
On top of that, they don't exclude the Big Bang. I fact some of them imply or require an infinite number of Big Bangs.
And they don't even exclude simulation btw, because if a universe could be simulated, why not simulate an infinity of them?
Saying one doesn't like the Big Bang and prefers a multiverse theory is a bit like saying one doesn't like the H2O molecule but one enjoys drowning.
Heard a fellow claim a little while back the period in which the Big Bang occurred is a placeholder for our lack in understanding with respect to the laws of physics and such.
The only actual explanation that is as quaint as the idea of God, is the whole computer simulation theory(evidence being the unaccounted for dark matter/energy and such). Only problem with that theory, is we're back to square-one almost, with no way of proving or disproving it until we can exit the system and get a third person view of it from the outside(sort of like a religion of sorts now that has proponents saying "don't bother, since you can't leave a simulation").
It also doesn't make sense to propose theories more complex, as everything we've observed in our reality starts with simplicity, and expands unto complexity. Even if it were true that we are in a simulation, it doesn't do anything to expanding our understanding since we can't prove it, or disprove it.. The only time it would make sense to start talking about it seriously, is if everything in the simulation was fully understood. Which as we can see, we don't have a full grasp of our reality.
The only actual explanation that is as quaint as the idea of God, is the whole computer simulation theory(evidence being the unaccounted for dark matter/energy and such). Only problem with that theory, is we're back to square-one almost, with no way of proving or disproving it until we can exit the system and get a third person view of it from the outside(sort of like a religion of sorts now that has proponents saying "don't bother, since you can't leave a simulation").
It also doesn't make sense to propose theories more complex, as everything we've observed in our reality starts with simplicity, and expands unto complexity. Even if it were true that we are in a simulation, it doesn't do anything to expanding our understanding since we can't prove it, or disprove it.. The only time it would make sense to start talking about it seriously, is if everything in the simulation was fully understood. Which as we can see, we don't have a full grasp of our reality.
Similar threads
-
-
Manu Dibango Succumbs To Covid 19 Virus- Started by Wombat
- Replies: 1