• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Why mainstream science contradicts itself

Migrated topic.

misterfractal55834

Rising Star
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
74
Merits
42
Gonna keep this short. Science says that matter and energy are never created or destroyed only transferred. In the mainstream scientific world, the Big Bang Theory is now considered more fact than theory. So if the universe was created by the big bang, where did the compacted universe come from? Like science said matter and energy are never created, but something had to have created the compacted universe since matter doesn't appear from thin air according to scientific law. Basically a total contradiction. Please post comments, questions, or thoughts.
 
Scientists freely admit their limitations. The Standard Model is so popular because its equations can accurately predict almost all physical phenomena- it's hard to argue with that. But these equations break down as you approach singularities such as black holes or the Big Bang. The numbers all start converging on infinity and the math becomes unworkable. This is not a contradiction, but an inherent limitation in the model.

Here are a couple possible explanations. One is that at history's midpoint, the universe's expansion halts and a contraction begins. Eventually the whole thing re-collapses into a singularity, but immediately rebounds, beginning the process again. This could keep going on like a trillion year heartbeat ad infinitum, without the need to create energy.

Another possibility is that the energy was transferred from a neighboring universe, possibly as a result of a high-energy collision. Google "braneworld" if you are curious about this model.

The reality is that we aren't capable of looking into a singularity and getting answers. But there doesn't necessarily need to be any contradiction.
 
The universe has a net energy density of zero, thus the many plausible, natural scenarios in which it came into being from "nothing" does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy). In short, within our best models the origin of our universe do not violate anything, thus there need not be any contradictions =)

I can extrapolate on this a bit further if you wish later.
 
Citta said:
The universe has a net energy density of zero

Maybe... still a hypothesis.

Anyways, as Guyomech and Citta said, there isn't necessarily a contradiction between the conservation of energy and the big bang theory. In this sense, one approach I really liked was made by Ilya Prigogine, one of the greatest names in the study of thermodynamics. I cannot copy from his book "The End of Certainty" right now, but I found a handy quote about his suggestions.

Why is there something rather than nothing? The ultimate question beyond the range of positive knowledge. One answer to this question is a theory that defines the birth of our universe as a free lunch. Edward Tryon presented this idea in 1973. In his view, our universe can be described as having two forms of energy: one related to attractive gravitational forces, which is negative, and the other related to mass according to Einstein’s celebrated formula E = Mc2. It is tempting to speculate that the total energy of the universe could be zero, as is the energy of an empty universe. The big bang would thus be associated with fluctuations in the vacuum conserving the energy. Prigogine suggests that what happened in the big bang was an irreversible phase transition from a preuniverse that he calls the “quantum vacuum”. Thus, the birth of our universe is no longer seen to be associated with a singularity (a point of infinite density of matter and energy) that defies the laws of physics, but rather with an instability that is analogous to a phase transition or a bifurcation. (...) He views the universe as a giant thermodynamical system far from equilibrium, where we find fluctuations, instabilities, and evolutionary patterns at all levels.
 
To answer your question with my own weird little answer: because no one really knows anything. As cryptic as that may be, that's my opinion on it. Science should know better when trying to establish a conclusion, without factoring in all the variables. The probability that we'll never get just the right explanation is much greater than the one that we will find it, considering what we know and taking into account that we're still missing big parts of it.

We know what we know so far, but knowing a lot does not mean that's how it is. The proof is that our current knowledge doesn't quite work in some parts of the universe, so there's that.

I personally don't understand why it couldn't have "just been here forever". Maybe the Universe is inflating and deflating continuously, why isn't that a possibility? It's a weird enough universe, what's one more thing? :)
 
Science was always about theory. About thinking of models of our universe which may or may not have results and proofs in experiments or observations.

So as I see it there is nothing to contradict.Theories come theories go(fuck Bill O'reilly) and it will stay this way until there is no Unknown factor.

Simple as that no need to go into complex theories.

However as Religion the aim is blurred by humans.
 
benzyme said:
mainstream science... as opposed to what, underground science?
have you conducted any amateur experiments which creates something from nothing lately?

learn to distinguish laws from theories.
When I say mainstream I mean what is generally accepted by the scientific community and what is taught in schools. Hell the FDA doesn't consider any type of supplement to have any medical use(this is just an example). I was simply giving an opinion about a thought that had been on my mind. There are creationism scientists who have their own theories but are usually considered to be crackpot scientists by the "mainstream" scientific community. This post was my opinion of how I feel science basics that everyone is taught and generally accepted contradicts itself. I wasn't throwing out an absolute.
 
benzyme said:
science is science, else, pseudo.
you apply the method to show evidence, or reject the alternate hypothesis.

it's as simple as that.

most evidence in science supports theories, "facts" aren't part of scientific terminology.
there are hypotheses, theories, and laws.

I hear ya just fine, benzyme. But scientists, just like me and you, are losing their head in this game in which they're trying to find a GLOBAL law for everything (the answer to everything). That's the end purpose, wouldn't you say? Now, for a simple dude like me, that doesn't seem to be the way the universe works at all. I might be oh so wrong, but I'd rather spend the time that I have working towards things that will matter of factly help me in my day to day life. So who cares where we came from? If some alien race manufactured us, then what? Then everything can evolve, because "now we're ready"?

What we humans are absolutely great at is discovering how stuff works relative to one another. That's about our biggest progress. I understood a lot of those concepts simply by understanding my own human nature and the way that I work in day to day life. It's cool stuff, but it doesn't take millennia. And I find most of it pointless in the end. Like time. Sure, that's a great thing, but it doesn't really do anything. I'd be just as happy without having to measure time, but it wouldn't be that easy for the employers to call they're employees to work without it.

The questions "where did we come from" or "who am I" simply stem from the need of the human being to "escape" this, believing there's some sort of escape from it. Bad luck, we ain't got any of that, speaking strictly about what we can relate. Maybe death is an option, but since no one ever lived to talk about it, it'd be pretty hard to say what goes where. The attempt to understand something of which you're missing half is never going to render the result of understanding everything, though.
 
rjb said:
I hear ya just fine, benzyme. But scientists, just like me and you, are losing their head in this game in which they're trying to find a GLOBAL law for everything (the answer to everything). That's the end purpose, wouldn't you say? Now, for a simple dude like me, that doesn't seem to be the way the universe works at all. I might be oh so wrong, but I'd rather spend the time that I have working towards things that will matter of factly help me in my day to day life. So who cares where we came from? If some alien race manufactured us, then what? Then everything can evolve, because "now we're ready"?

What we humans are absolutely great at is discovering how stuff works relative to one another. That's about our biggest progress. I understood a lot of those concepts simply by understanding my own human nature and the way that I work in day to day life. It's cool stuff, but it doesn't take millennia. And I find most of it pointless in the end. Like time. Sure, that's a great thing, but it doesn't really do anything. I'd be just as happy without having to measure time, but it wouldn't be that easy for the employers to call they're employees to work without it.

The questions "where did we come from" or "who am I" simply stem from the need of the human being to "escape" this, believing there's some sort of escape from it. Bad luck, we ain't got any of that, speaking strictly about what we can relate. Maybe death is an option, but since no one ever lived to talk about it, it'd be pretty hard to say what goes where. The attempt to understand something of which you're missing half is never going to render the result of understanding everything, though.

What are you talking about? Why is it pointless to try to answer deep and old questions about the origins of life, the origins of the universe, where we came from, where we are going? Asking these questions is by no means an attempt or need to "escape" anything, it's looking reality in the face and having the guts to search for the truth. What the hell are you talking about, anyway? Escaping what?

Furthermore, scientific breakthroughs often lead to technological advances that greatly affects our lives. Many difficult questions have been asked throughout history, and some of these have been answered through science which have later led to applications. This is important. Knowledge is important. Not saying absolutely that figuring out how the universe began will produce new technology, it might not, but it might just as well do so in the process. We've seen examples of this before, for instance the first proposal of the World Wide Web originated in the particle experiments at CERN. The internet started there.

Anyway, people care about different things. You might not care to illuminate this mystery through science, but others do care. Just because you find something meaningless doesn't mean that others must also :)
 
Citta said:
rjb said:
it's looking reality in the face and having the guts to search for the truth.
Agreed. People often dismiss altered states because it's not 'real' whereas it obviously and repeatably IS real. Just not a part of the same logical world most people want to know.

A purely materialistic, 'logical' approach to science ignores anything experienced from a none-standard perspective as unreliable; as though all humans see the world the same way anyway.
Understanding the fundamentals of life start by accepting all reality. Not dismissing any part.

This is from neurophyychopharmacology journal:
 

Attachments

"In a world dominated by chaos, the scientist chooses to rather look outside in the universe than inside his own heart."

Science is always right, and everything's just a mechanical construct. Perfect view to embrace. If you can believe that.
 
Beliefs are irrelevant in this sense. To say "science is always right" (or always wrong) is to misunderstand it is a method. Right or wrong is a human subjective judgement. It's not up to science to be right or wrong, it's a specialized way of deriving a certain kind of knowledge, and it's damn reliable at it. After you get your information, you decide what to do with it.

Science isn't about existential questioning (for example science has no say whether everything we see is a part of a consistent illusion/matrix/virtual reality or not), but science is a method for finding the patterns inside this universe/illusion/virtual reality. Show me another way that is as or more reliable in finding these patterns and overcoming subjective bias (and open to falsifying the old more established theories)... I really doubt you can
 
Back
Top Bottom