Is the Big Bang Theory the Only Valid Explanation for the Universe's Origin?

[sd01g]

.

Do you have some special insight (or reason) for thinking that the unificiation will involve abandoning the approach which underlies GR?

I do not have any special insight, but the reason I think GR is becoming obsolete (in the same sense that some of Newton's concepts are are obsolete but useful) is that the concepts underlying the equations do not represent anything real-they are just concepts. Concepts do not produce any known force that can affect anything that is real. Can anyone say what is 'a ripple in spacetime' actually is other than a concept? Combining space and time might produce useful equations but give no understanding of what is really happening. The concept of a graviton particle, which originates within the nucleus of an atom to produce a force, seems more compelling.

When large group of hydrogen molecules in space attract each other to produce stars, it seems more of a quantum activity than molecules warping spacetime. Molecules in deep space attracting other molecules by exchanging graviton particles just seems right.

I wish I could be more enlightening, but it seems that current knowledge levels are too low to produce anything more than just postulates.

 

[Nereid]

the reason I think GR is becoming obsolete [...] is that the concepts underlying the equations do not represent anything real-they are just concepts

We will quickly get into philosophy, I'm sure, but maybe one more round?

What is 'real'? What is 'just concepts'? How can you tell the difference (other than your intuitive sense of what 'feels right')?

Concepts do not produce any known force that can affect anything that is real

By implication then, a 'force' is 'real'? If so, why?

The concept of a graviton particle, which originates within the nucleus of an atom to produce a force, seems more compelling

But it's just a 'concept', right? (And, as an aside, where did the idea that a graviton 'originates within the nucleus of an atom' come from? In the framework you are using (or making up) for these 'gravitons', does it follow that no other form of mass-energy (e.g. electrons, neutrinos, photons) can 'originate' gravitons?

When large group of hydrogen molecules in space attract each other to produce stars, it seems more of a quantum activity than molecules warping spacetime.

OK, you said these are just your feelings, so you may have already answered this ... do you have any basis (other than your feelings) for this statement?

 

[Starship]

I agree with sd01g. Space-time is an abstract mathematical construct. It's not physical.

Time dilation & time travel is also impossible. Time is an abstract invariant by definition. Time doesn't really slow down. It's the clocks (including our internal clock - the heart) which slow down due to energy conservation at work. Nature is all about logic.

Space and time are abstract (non-physical). It's only matter and energy that exists in nature. The contradiction is that the relative is abstract and depends on the absolute. In nature there are only particles (which are absolute) and their interactions. Think about it...

PS: A correct theory is also the one which is supported mostly by direct evidence and can be tested and falsified. Einstein's space-time cannot be tested nor falsified and therefore cannot be a physical property of this universe.

 

[Nereid]

PS: A correct theory is also the one which is supported mostly by direct evidence and can be tested and falsified. Einstein's space-time cannot be tested nor falsified and therefore cannot be a physical property of this universe.

Leaving aside, for the moment, that the Popperian view of science has been thoroughly falsified (), I'm wondering if you could indulge me just a little Starship ... GR has passed all the good tests it's been subject to to date, and has passed with flying colours. You may interpret the maths in GR to include 'space-time'; or you may interpret the math purely as a 'black box' (input data, crunch the equations and numbers, out come predictions). To some extent, the 'how' reflects your personal, philosophical view of the world, reality, etc (including whether 'space-time' is 'a physical property' or not).

In what sense can you reject one particular interpretation of math (and accept another)? In particular, how can you do this scientifically?

 

[Starship]

Leaving aside, for the moment, that the Popperian view of science has been thoroughly falsified (), I'm wondering if you could indulge me just a little Starship ... GR has passed all the good tests it's been subject to to date, and has passed with flying colours. You may interpret the maths in GR to include 'space-time'; or you may interpret the math purely as a 'black box' (input data, crunch the equations and numbers, out come predictions). To some extent, the 'how' reflects your personal, philosophical view of the world, reality, etc (including whether 'space-time' is 'a physical property' or not).

In what sense can you reject one particular interpretation of math (and accept another)? In particular, how can you do this scientifically?

GR did not pass all tests. Also these tests were indirect tests. Physics is not math. Math does not explain physical phenomena.

Science rests on it's philosophical foundations. The philosophy of space-time goes back Gottfried Leibniz, not to Popper. Leibniz rejected the physical existence of space (absolute or otherwise), existing seperately from absolute matter and energy.

Saying that something moves in spacetime is a contradiction in my opinion because time is an abstract invariant by definition. Time is the abstract inverse of change (motion is change in position). The conclusion is that there is no time dimension. It's abstract (in our mind).

I think physics should be about particles, their properties and their interactions.

 

[Nereid]

GR did not pass all tests.

Oh, would you be so kind as to tell us all which it did not? (I'm sure http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html would be most interested)

Also these tests were indirect tests.

What does this mean?

Science rests on it's philosophical foundations. The philosophy of space-time goes back Gottfried Leibniz, not to Popper.

My bad; I was referring to the fact that Popper's 'falsification' had, itself, been 'falsified' IOW, science doesn't work like Popper said it does.

Leibniz rejected the physical existence of space (absolute or otherwise), existing seperately from absolute matter and energy. Saying that something moves in spacetime is a contradiction in my opinion because time is an abstract invariant by definition. Time is the abstract inverse of change (motion is change in position). The conclusion is that there is no time dimension. It's abstract (in our mind).

That's nice, and we could have an interesting philosophical discussion on it; but in what way is it science?

I think physics should be about particles, their properties and their interactions.

And I think physics should be about the ;lknserto;ih of dead DM pets, as they uiwhregdf through the 098qy34tj!

We are rapidly approaching the end of useful life to this thread; perhaps you'd like to start a thread, in Philosophy (of Science and Maths), to discuss this further?

 

[Starship]

Oh, would you be so kind as to tell us all which it did not? (I'm sure Clifford Will would be most interested)

General relativity did not past all tests. Dark matter has never been detected or produced experimentally. Another problem with GR is infinite space-time curvature and the rapid expansion of space (from a singularity). Could you please tell us where all this energy is coming from?

Sean M. Carroll gives a very good lesson about the so-called http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0410/0410270.pdf

My bad; I was referring to the fact that Popper's 'falsification' had, itself, been 'falsified' IOW, science doesn't work like Popper said it does.

Popper was not falsified. A theory which cannot be tested or falsified is not science. It's pseudoscience.

That's nice, and we could have an interesting philosophical discussion on it; but in what way is it science?

You're right. It isn't. Spacetime and time travel is not scientific.

Everything is conserved in this universe. Energy is always needed to do work, therefore nothing can happen without a cause. No one has ever wondered about the true nature of causality.