Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

Originally posted by PhageYou know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

Only during the Planck Epoch. Afterwards the two must mutually coincide to explain the precipitation of bosons, hadrons, fermions, gravity, and emergence of EM fields as distinct from matter.

Originally posted by ionwind
Science is a self-correcting process. There is no endgame in science. As we make more observations, our theories will change or be discarded to be replaced by better ones.

This is very different when compared to religion, which is dogmatic and very resistant to change. I'm not saying religion is bad, just different than science.

Then there is metaphysics. It does not rely entirely on experimental evidence but also includes philosophy and theology.

From a scientific perspective, it would be very arrogant to assume we already knew everything there is to know about everything.

Can science, religion and metaphysics co-exist? Why not, unless you have an agenda.

I am almost certain our theory of the Big Bang will change or be modified. Consider, for example, the Evidence that events happened before the Big Bang.

dogmatically omniscient religion is the opposite of spiritual discovery, which is inner science. religion such as pseudo-christian/roman-pagan vaticanism has been a bane to humanity since its inception (for the very purpose of enslavement), while buddhism continues to encourage self-discovery to this day without authoritarian impediment--as examples. there IS often something very 'wrong' with mind controlling dogmas (from the point of view of advancing knowledge and awareness).

i've always thought the "big bang theory" was a totality of "mans arrogance of maintaining control,& explaining everything"-(as he has this "desperate psycological" need of taking credit for ANYTHING & EVERYTHING) + also being super-hypothetical..after seeing the divine creations in nature,(butterflies,humming birds,delicate flowers & etc,),i know that without a doubt-there is only ONE way they came to be...GOD

Originally posted by Phage
You know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

They think they may have found something...maybe. That's happened before at CERN before. Remember the "faster than light" neutrons.

Really interesting. But again, it doesn't really say much about the big bang.

Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.

The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.

phys.org...

yes i noted that. yes indeed they have not made a final decision which is why i have a 'question mark (?) at the end of my topic title. but what is true is that they are now seeing reason to question what they thought they knew and was set to solidify as fact for all eternity.

wouldnt you agree that the standard model deals solely in logical explanation? and that these discoveries science is coming to nowadays are further pushing them out of the realms of pure fundamental logic into illogical interaction somehow forming the logical and physical reality we see around us?

in most basic example an atom appears to be made out of empty space, and contains within it energy. yet, when put together in an arrangement it becomes a solid block of say.. calcium stone.

the visible formed out of the invisible? sorry, but the bible said it first!

also.. the implications do affect the big bang from my perspective and here's why. in a holistic examination of longterm effects if such a knowledge was to be accepted. wouldnt they have to remodel the forging of the physical universe in relation to it's apparent invisible counterparts? all the other dimensions with living beings in them?

HOW.. would they do that, without admitting the bible said it first? in the beginning all was dark and void and God said let their be light. didnt light somehow burst forth thru the darkness? what was the catalyst for this reaction? it could not have ignited itself. this much is ignored!

i propose that the dark matter is alive, conscious, and willfully performs the tasks it must to structure energy/light into atoms and the rules of interaction set in those atoms which allow them to come together to form solid matter. in essence it wont be matter at all. it is in a state which is ready to be commanded to become the form which it is willed to do.

there is no chance. this is all intentional. science is slowly approaching proof of things claimed in religious texts by mystics centuries ago!

and sorry all i did not realize this topic had kicked off to such discussion. i have been tending to other matters.

Time to flip on the NOVA string theory vids again.
Fascinating stuff...over my head at the moment, but always love new observations as they come.

Does this give more credibility to the whole 11 dimensions / string theory then?

Originally posted by aries58
i've always thought the "big bang theory" was a totality of "mans arrogance of maintaining control,& explaining everything"-(as he has this "desperate psycological" need of taking credit for ANYTHING & EVERYTHING) + also being super-hypothetical..after seeing the divine creations in nature,(butterflies,humming birds,delicate flowers & etc,),i know that without a doubt-there is only ONE way they came to be...GOD

I was gonna say Gandalf.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by filledcup
there is alot that science is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of science.

When we apply your same logic to any other concept, we come to the same conclusions. for instance:

there is a lot that religion is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of religion.

When we use your logic, you are basically saying that we should not put our faith in anything. I propose that we put our faith in the things that work best. Praying that a disease is cured has a lot worse track record of success than modern science based medicine. So for my personal health I would put my faith in science.

If for you personally religion (or other world view) works better than science, then that is fine by me. As long as nobody it forcing his religion upon others, I am ok with it. I do despise religious parents who deny their kids vaccination because they believe its them getting mortally ill is gods will.

very good. but you will see that i dont aim to simply chastize science. but since science was formed out of the minds of philosophical men and Spiritual seekers, we must acknowledge the spiritual roots of science and logic, and thus of existence.

it will happen you know? mark my words. science and religion will unite. it will become the logical thing to do. religious aspirations will be disclosed in a systematic and scientific process. and scientific knowledge will be referenced to it's non-physical and thought controlling counterpart.

why has noone responed to my post on the topic of the 'quantum enigma'

why is it that when we observe a particle it stays a particle, but when we are not looking it stays as a wave? this conundrum of particle wave is baffling scientists.

if we point a camera at it, wont it still stay as a wave? it is only through the introduction of a human observer, a conscious living entity possessing thought faculty, that this transition from wave to particle occurs. which rightfully suggests that thought is affecting the experiment.

why is this?? well, a duck could talk to another duck. and a dog could talk to another dog. a spanish man can communicate with another spanish man in spanish. and an english man can communicate to another man in english. thus, thought, communicates with thought. and that is why thought affects the experiments. we are observing the backdrop of thought. the all encompassing intelligence which binds and drives the structure of our universe. that higher intelligence, i call God.

it's not a big deal. we can pursue science.. but we mustnt forget that God is the supreme and to him all praise must be given. we cannot mathematically map out consciousness. we can mathematically map out logical things only. but natural things are completely seperate from science and they can not venture very far without meeting up with visions of the hand of God at work.

the question of when is only a matter of the question "how many divide by zero errors will it take?"

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by filledcup

 

When you say science and religion will unite, are you talking about our universe being a simulation and therefor requiring a creator?

A surprising amount of high level theoretical physicists seem to favour the simulation hypothesis but none have mentioned the implications of this.

edit on 4/8/2013 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)

yes!

if newton's laws were believed by science.. then every action creates an equal and opposite reaction..

what is it that would cause the reaction of the big bang to ensue? what would have been the action, that caused that reaction. and if not from an intelligent force of some kind, then what created that action, that ended up causing the reaction of the big bang? and what created that and so on and so on.

the bible already says:

God exists outside the laws of physics!
God Created light from Darkness (big bang)
The world consists of both seen and unseen worlds
Both seen and unseen intelligent conscious ENTITIES

Mystics have beaten us to the finish line!

maybe if we had faith in what is taught in our religions we would not need to go testing through science, and will instead test through our spiritual path of life. but understandable.. religious teachings have been corrupted by greed and power. very few are able to sift through it all and find the truth. to discover and experience it for themselves.

Originally posted by ShaeTheShaman
it must suck being a scientist sometimes. knowing you'll never get answers to the universe. studying your whole life on something to find out in the end you were wrong . smh , this will happen many life times.

Here's what's worse. You physically die return to the ethereal and find out the Big Bang or Bang Bing or Boom Bong Bung doesn't mean a hill of beans in a world which has no time or distance.

It's a bunch of silly humans wasting their temporal slots in a material world masturbating over astral physics they will never understand whilst on Earth.

Originally posted by filledcup

God exists outside the laws of physics!
God Created light from Darkness (big bang)
The world consists of both seen and unseen worlds
Both seen and unseen intelligent conscious ENTITIES

Mystics have beaten us to the finish line!

maybe if we had faith in what is taught in our religions we would not need to go testing through science, and will instead test through our spiritual path of life. but understandable.. religious teachings have been corrupted by greed and power. very few are able to sift through it all and find the truth. to discover and experience it for themselves.

I don't know anything about any religion to be honest but I have always wondered where the writers of these texts got their information from.

If the simulation hypothesis is indeed true, our 'God' may be some teenager running his science project! The teenager may themselves be a simulation and so on.

There may be many layers of simulation and we too may be running our own simulations in the not too distant future. However, underpinning all the simulations there must be a 'real' reality. How did this reality arise?

PS By high level physicists I mean intellectual power houses such as Susskind, t'Hooft, Verlinde, Smolin etc.

My honest opinion........... We have not touched the surface of how our universe is made.

Sure some of you reading this are going to be thinking "But science says..." But that is human science, that is as far as our experimental and idea range will go.


I don't think we are advanced enough to understand what holds the universe together.

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe

I don't know anything about any religion to be honest

Feel fortunate.

but I have always wondered where the writers of these texts got their information from.

Some of it they pulled directly out of their asses.

on topics like this i refuse to get caught up in the minutia and current popscience fluff theories that are being bandied about.......because until someone can explain to me how we get something from a nothing i just cant even intellectually go there.

also...how is asking me to believe that 'the universe produced the 'stuff' that became the big bang any different than asking me to believe in a god that created the stuff?

the 'universe'....a nice catch all word that we can use instead of god when we get to stuff so rediculously impossible to understand.

so the 'universe' is expanding.....into what? and what is 'that' inside of please? oh the universe is a sphere...or its a disc/k ....really.....and what is that inside of?

i dont need complex quantum physics and math to tell me what common sense and childlike simple observation of the 'nature' of things all around me tell me........everything has something smaller and something bigger inside and outside.......some fancy characters on a chalk board and truckloads of 200 iq smart guy babble wont convince me that 'its not that simple!'

reply to post by filledcup


Right... because science is willing to update when new evidence points to a different conclusion, we should be against science and put our faith in religions that neither had it right the first time, or will ever change when evidence is presented contrary to their unfounded views.

The OP is pure doublethink.

Sounds a little better than the big bang joke to me anyway. At least this emerging theory has a little real philosophy to direct it's creation. S&F

Originally posted by TheOd

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe

I don't know anything about any religion to be honest

Feel fortunate.

but I have always wondered where the writers of these texts got their information from.

Some of it they pulled directly out of their asses.

I do feel fortunate and that is the source I suspected However, like many myths I'm sure there are some truths in there somewhere.

reply to post by pirhanna


I think it would be a lot cheaper to put our faith in religion. Believe me when I say that the working man always pays for the costs of everything.

Originally posted by instigatah
on topics like this i refuse to get caught up in the minutia and current popscience fluff theories that are being bandied about.......because until someone can explain to me how we get something from a nothing i just cant even intellectually go there.

You must be a Terence McKenna fan.

The sober men of science are saying the universe sprang from nothing for no reason," he says with Buddhistic non-attachment. "This is the limit test for credulity! Science is saying give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest. I'll take mine at the end, thank you.

It's a "hard swallow" lol

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
I do feel fortunate and that is the source I suspected

However, like many myths I'm sure there are some truths in there somewhere.

edit on 4/8/2013 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)

Yep bunches of truths in the Scriptures and that's the horrible trick of it.

OK, let me put it another way. In the movie Jurassic Park, there's a scene where a researcher sticks her hand in a pile of dinosaur crap, digs around, and pulls out an undigested berry. I'm sure if I read more Bible, I too may discover a crap covered berry, but to me, the price is way too high.