Sarn, seriously, I don't think you understand the basics premises of science. Please go read about the philosophy of science and the scientific method before declaring other people's work you don't understand as retarded.
Big hint: When you're complaining that scientists aren't using an unexplainable supernatural thing/event to explain something, you're getting quite a lot wrong there.

You're also an idiot for being unable to see that any advance in human knowledge can have unforeseen benefits later on.

Except there ARE observable data that help establish certain theories. For example, there is information collected that help ground the idea that the universe is expanding and show that the universe has evolved over time. The reason why the Big Bang is so well known is that, while its still just a theory, it is one of the best models for the universe's creation due to all the data that support it (i.e. readings of CMB). Yes, it can't be proven and it has it's controversies, but then again, theories don't get "proven". But they aren't "useless" and easily debated to be scientifically less "outrageous" than say, an idea that a pink pony named Todd used bodily fluids to construct time and space.

Is it "useless" to sent people to space? Space is just a cold void, what's the point? As mentioned in this thread before, scientific advancements in one field often give back benefits for others. You are probably using or have used products that were technologically improved by NASA in some way or form. New technology built and designed for researching the beginning of the universe (fueled by these theories in the first place) could easily help other areas of study or even commercial goods.

edit: it's seems everything I said was said before. meh

Sure, perhaps you didn't imply that it's -all- that scientists do, that was a bit of sarcasm on my side. However, you were still making a totally unfounded assumption about why these people are even working on this theory. Which says more about you than about said theory.

No. Mathematical theories that can be proofed are not on the same playing field as invisible friends and water to wine. Those aren't even similarly outrageous. If outrage was a sport, The Big Bang would be chess.

And the reason people were making arguments against something you "didn't" say is because the point you're trying to make is because of one thing: You want to believe in God just as much as these people want to figure out what actually happened at the beginning of the universe. You already have your answers, and you're threatened by people looking for their own.

That is, however mean it is to say, moronic. I like you as a person, but your beliefs and ideals have always landed in the deep end of stupid.

hey lets all get high

k

You know I still haven't read the post in the OP.

...and want to make a name for them selves, and want to see their theory succeed over others, ect. Humans are humans. Besides, we're not really talking about mathematical theories that can be proofed. If they were, we wouldn't see 400 of them pop up every month.

I said proofed, not proven.

What a stunningly accurate generalization!

Wanting a theory to succeed for petty reasons is a side effect of being human. It is not why people go into science in the first place. People go into science to further our understanding of the universe.

Or you know. Because they like science.

Whether or not that was intentional, I'm going to assume it was and give you props for clever word usage and foresight.

Umm.. kirbs. honestly? you think I'm threatened by people who think differently than me?! Do you even know me at all?

Also, I believe in God, not because I "want to" but because it makes sense to me.

But another thing. Stop trying to argue against me based on what you "think" I believe. I never even said anything about my Christian beliefs, nor did I claim that I didn't like the theory because it didn't involve God. But you all seem to think that's what I think. Honestly, it's laughable.

So.

FOR THE RECORD.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE BEING SEPARATE FROM RELIGION.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY OF THE BIG BANG.

If there's evidence to suggest that stuff happened that way, then I'm willing to concede that it may have happened that way. It doesn't "threaten" my beliefs in any way. I choose to believe that God created the universe, and that he could have made that process look and feel and happen however he wanted it to look and feel and happen. No amount of "science" is going to change my mind, because I'm not concerned with science. Science sits in an entirely separate niche. At the end of my life when I die and and called before God to account for my sins, whether I believe in a literal 7 day universe creation or a big bang and evolution creation is NOT going to affect my salvation. For that reason I choose not to care.

My original post in this thread is over the silliness of this whole affair, and the fact that the scientists are making such a big deal about it. like:

"Hey guys! We've figured out.. where the universe... CAME FROM!" *music swells*

"Oh really? Where?"

"Wait for it!..." *crescendo*

"Omg, I can't wait to here the answer.."

"Ok.. Here it is! The universe came from!!!! ANOTHER!!!! UNIVERSE!!! DUN DUN DUN!"

"... really? So.. uhhm... where did that one.. you know.. come from?"

"No idea. We'll try and figure that out later.. But for now we're too busy patting ourselves on the back for this discovery."

Like honestly, the whole thing is so ridiculous, it's laughable.

Well, a proof that satisfies mathematical equations relating to the theoretical beginning of the universe isn't really a sarcastic exchange of horn-tooting and drum rolls. You're still transmitting your complete lack of science comprehension, and it's why people have been using words like "moron" and "idiot."

You might not be threatened by people's answers to the question you've already become satisfied and satiated with, but your considering their answers "laughable" is defensive enough.

And yes, I did that Pommy.

Erm... that runs counter to your original statement:
"This is retarded. All it is is some very creative men sitting around and thinking "Hmm.. we have to come up with a theory about the creation of the universe that doesn't involve God, so it can be scientific... Oh I know! What if our universe stemmed from ANOTHER universe!!!"

You said it was retarded and then gave your own description of the situation which in any normal situation directly implies that you're explain/describing why it's retarded. In this case it seems to be that you think these scientists are pulling theories out of their collective posterior and are deliberately going out of their way to avoid involving God.
So stop acting so incredulous to the reaction you received and seriously, if you don't want to be called an idiot, don't make dismissive statements about things you know nothing of.

So wait.

You guys aren't concerned that our universe could splinter off into countless numbers of other universes, possibly sucking us as individuals out, each into our own lonely abyss of space?

You aren't concerned that because these new universes may have different rules from ours, that we might have to exist outside the fabric of these universes? That perhaps we will have to spend eternal solitude manipulating the much more simple laws of a new existence, entertaining ourselves by playing in a sandbox of matter (or not matter?) and having no human contact. Wouldn't that be ****ty if we had to organize this stuff into imaginary friends?

But then our imaginary friends would think we were some kind of god or something.

And people go into medicine to help people. The point is, science gets the job done (the fact that I'm posting this demonstrates that), but we shouldn't elevate scientists to a god-like status. The idea that a scientist is perfectly objective and reasonable about everything all the time, is ludicrous. It's not different than health care industry. We've made amazing strides, but it's not without it's hick ups.



Hypothesis based on observations of phenomenon that are on the frontiers of our understanding is hardly in the same league as things like the theory of relativity. I mean, other than the fact that the universe the we can see is expanding, we really don't know a lot for sure. A lot of our theories about the composition of the universe are born out of the fact that many of our observations simply don't add up rather than direct observation. Give it another fifty years before you start celebrating.

I can agree with all of that. I was disagreeing that this is equal to religion in absurdity.

Well, you have to admit that some people might have a vested philosophical interest in this.

Desire for immortality is not enough grounds to dismiss a functioning proof. It takes something more like logic and disproof before you can truly call one of these theories "laughable."

no b/c we're not mormons

Epic Zing

Oh **** I was hoping nobody would catch that one.

****ing people and their world knowledge.

True, but we're not talking about functioning proofs.

Are you sure? That isn't a combative question, I just thought that this was a relatively math-proof theory. But as we've shown before, math can proof 20 different string theories, doesn't mean they're right. It also doesn't mean that they're less logical than religion, though.

Sorry, stupid question coming.

I have some knowledge of the concepts in this article, but it's very limited -- basically, I took an astronomy course and a cosmology course as a freshman. It's my understanding, to the extent that I can use that word, that we have no physics at all for the first few (insert unit for tiny, tiny fractions of a second here) because the physical forces themselves didn't come into being for a few (insert same unit) after the Big Bang. If that's the case, what do we have that could possibly suggest anything about the state of the universe before the Big Bang?

Mathematical equations that get from point A to point Now. Certain theories relate all of the laws of physics we now have, suggesting their origins. That's what unified string theory does.

But I don't know math. I just know a little bit about science. One of the smart people on this site will correct my inability to comprehend science.

Well, not exactly. The math relies on other observations, data and theories. Math just manipulates those things. For example, you can derive all sorts of things given a couple of relationships, but those given relationships have to be right. A collage physics textbook will begin a topic with a couple of physical relationships discovered often hundreds of years ago and proceed derive most of the other relationships from those base equations. Experiments that support the derived relationships confirm the preceding ones as well. You have to start with something, though. I know this stuff is really exotic, but I don't think you can start with "math" and get physics. You have to have some original assumptions to get anywhere.

A valid math proof, by definition cannot be wrong. The stuff you put into it can be wrong, or it can be invalid, but a valid proof, by definition is true. It doesn't have to stand the test of time or experiment, because it is absolute. Now, that's not to say your proof might have faulty reasoning, but I think that's usually caught pretty quickly compared to physics theories, because your dealing with absolutes rather than measurements.

No, no, it's a very sensible question (and precisely one that Cosmologists in Physics departments across the world are asking).

The idea is that the laws of Physics as we know them right now 'break down' as you approach the first few (tiny tiny fraction of a second) after the Big Bang. (I don't know the precise magnitudes either)

For example, Newton's Law of Gravitation: F = G m1 m2 / r^2

We take G to be a constant. In these moments after the Big Bang, G was not a constant but a variable depending upon time, G(t). So, what sort of relationship could G(t) have had to t? Could it have been absolutely anything? Well, no, because we do know certain things. The Universe started as something very very small, and became something much much bigger, within some small time interval. The function G(t) levelled out to the constant G in this time. This is a boundary condition and limits the functional form that G(t) can take. It doesn't limit it very much, it's probably still some very complicated differential equation. But very complicated differential equations can be approximated to slightly less complicated differential equations (by various methods sort of like Taylor expansions).

And this is just one equation, and probably wouldn't just depend upon time. You'd have more equations also relating to the same quantities. This actually makes it easier to model and simulate, with appropriate approximations.

Solving these sorts of equations is what Cosmologists and Mathematical Physicists work on in their day-to-day lives. Precisely these approximations are made perfectly clear in the article, they're working with a simplified model of the Universe (maybe neglecting certain interactions) within Loop Quantum Gravity, but one day it will be possible to solve these equations more accurately and have more accurate models.

For those of you moaning what's the point of all that?!, you have to realise that precisely the same sort of equations occur in other complicated models like weather patterns and the mathematics can be invaluable. So why aren't Physicists working directly on these useful problems? Well, they're just not very interesting. Physicists need passion for their work, and they're passionate about what they're interested it. Abstract discoveries have implications that trickle down into all sorts of other uses.

(In fact, this is precisely what separated the US from the Soviet Union in Science and Technology. The US had brilliant scientists and the science trickled down into various technologies in the rest of society, and while the Soviet Union had just as brilliant scientists the breakthroughs were kept from going to the rest of society. This is one of the reasons that when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was left with nothing and most of the brilliant scientists went to work elsewhere)

So basically they use interactions of particles in the extreme conditions of the hadron collier to approximate the condition of the universe right after the big bang?

Well, no. The energies aren't anywhere near high enough to simulate that. But they will tell us about what sort of particles are produced in certain interactions, which will also help to make for accurate modelling.