Physics

[LiamOS]

A lesser purpose of this thread is to allow members to ask questions about physics which they need clarification on or want an explanation on.

In my time spent here, I've been told many a time how conventional science fails and falls short in areas. As such, I decided to make this thread. However, as there are many on the subject of Biology and its many branches, I felt one to address the issues in physics would be appropriate.
For the purposes of this thread, physics covers Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics(QCD, QED...), Electromagnetism, Optics and Thermodynamics.
The conventional theories in each field will be taken, in the context of this thread, as the best explanation currently available:
The Big Bang, the Standard Model(Particle physics), etc.

Questions for debate:
-Other than that which we do not yet know(Higgs Boson, etc.), are there any significant shortcomings in the conventional physics of the day? If so, where and why?
-Some theories are based on underlying assumptions. Are any of these assumptions flawed or not necessarily true?

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity? Why or why not?

On a final note, this is a physics thread, so don't hold back on using mathematics as support for your hypotheses.

[mich]

A lesser purpose of this thread is to allow members to ask questions about physics which they need clarification on or want an explanation on.

In my time spent here, I've been told many a time how conventional science fails and falls short in areas. As such, I decided to make this thread. However, as there are many on the subject of Biology and its many branches, I felt one to address the issues in physics would be appropriate.
For the purposes of this thread, physics covers Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics(QCD, QED...), Electromagnetism, Optics and Thermodynamics.
The conventional theories in each field will be taken, in the context of this thread, as the best explanation currently available:
The Big Bang, the Standard Model(Particle physics), etc.

Questions for debate:
-Other than that which we do not yet know(Higgs Boson, etc.), are there any significant shortcomings in the conventional physics of the day? If so, where and why?
-Some theories are based on underlying assumptions. Are any of these assumptions flawed or not necessarily true?

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity? Why or why not?

On a final note, this is a physics thread, so don't hold back on using mathematics as support for your hypotheses.

Very interesting thread, Aki:

Let me make it clear that I do indeed believe in the main sciences even if my own personal understanding is faulty.
My belief is due to a personal faith in the scientific body.
I will start with the theory of Relativity. Since early belief of the nature of light was that of a wave, the late 19th century scientists were confused
about certain observations, such as the Michelson and Morley experiment and the constant found within Maxwell's equations.
I am confused as to why these two observations did not lead the scientists back to the theory of the nature of light being a particle.
Instead, Michelson proposed a length contraction as existing within the direction of the velocity relative to the ether, and Einstein adopted
the contraction, added a dilation of time and claimed that no ether existed.
What were the evidence they had on hand in order to make such claims?

Andre

[McCulloch]

-Other than that which we do not yet know(Higgs Boson, etc.), are there any significant shortcomings in the conventional physics of the day? If so, where and why?

To unify quantum mechanics with general relativity in a self-consistent manner, or more precisely, to formulate a self-consistent theory which reduces to ordinary quantum mechanics in the limit of weak gravity (potentials much less than c²) and which reduces to Einsteinian general relativity in the limit of large actions (action much larger than reduced Planck's constant).

Aside from that big one, most of the other significant shortcomings of conventional physics are minor.

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity? Why or why not?

The God hypothesis is completely unnecessary to current physics. It explains everything and anything, thus it explains nothing.

[myth-one.com]

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity?

Physicists would have us believe that the universe contains everything that exists, and before the universe came into existence, there was nothing " no space nor time.

Then the universe was created by the Big Bang which resulted from an infinitely small and infinitely massive "singularity" within this nothingness. This singularity had "no physical dimensions." It was a dot " surrounded by nothing, not even empty space. Then, for no particular reason, the nothing which was the singularity began to expand. This expansion created all space, matter, and time that exists.

The universe inflated to about the diameter of our galaxy (100,000 light years across) in about 90 seconds. Its average speed of expansion over that first 90 seconds was about 17,921,136,039 times the speed of light! (if my math is correct).

The God hypothesis is completely unnecessary to current physics. It explains everything and anything, thus it explains nothing.

Well, is it just me, or does the above explanation defy physics?

Do the current laws of physics work with infinitely small infinitely massive dots which inflate at speeds of 17,921,136,039 times the speed of light! If not, then physics does not explain the universe!

Physics needs help from somewhere " why not from "above?"

Isn't "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" just as, or even more plausible?

[McCulloch]

The God hypothesis is completely unnecessary to current physics. It explains everything and anything, thus it explains nothing.

Well, is it just me, or does the above explanation defy physics?

It defies our current understanding of physics. Implying, of course, that our current understanding of physics is incomplete. However, the God hypothesis gets us absolutely no closer to a good understanding. It is far better to have an honest I don't know than a God did it.

Physics needs help from somewhere " why not from "above?"

Because that really does not help us come to terms with it. If there is some sort of creative entity outside of the spacetime continuum, why call it God? Why believe that it has the personality and attributes commonly attributed with Deity? Why believe that it has an eternal plan for the few sapient specimens among a shallow organic film on one small planet?

If you must invoke some kind of supernaturalism to answer your I don't knows then at least don't do so with a name that has so much baggage as God.

[LiamOS]

As far as I know, myth-one, space is currently expanding faster than light. There's nothing weird 'bout that.

[myth-one.com]

It defies our current understanding of physics. Implying, of course, that our current understanding of physics is incomplete.

There seems to be a similarity (as opposed to a singularity) here:

Mankind does understand how the universe was physically created.

-- And --

Mankind does not understand "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The commonality is that mankind does not understand.

As far as I know, myth-one, space is currently expanding faster than light. There's nothing weird 'bout that.

186,000.001 miles per second? Did you find the 17,921,136,039 times the speed of light weird? Just a wee bit?

[perfessor]

186,000.001 miles per second? Did you find the 17,921,136,039 times the speed of light weird? Just a wee bit?

It sounds like a made-up number to me. Where did you get it?

[myth-one.com]

Did you find the 17,921,136,039 times the speed of light weird? Just a wee bit?

It sounds like a made-up number to me. Where did you get it?

On one of the science channels it was stated that the inflation was so rapid that it became equal in diameter to our Milky Way galaxy within 90 seconds after the Big Bang.

Our Milky Way is about 100,000 light years or 6 X 10**17 miles in diameter.

Since the inflation was in all directions, it actually expanded only 50,000 light years in all directions to become equal in diameter to our galaxy. That's 3 X 10**17 miles.

So it's average speed of inflation in every direction was 3 x 10**17 miles divided by 90 seconds, or:

( 3 X 10**17 miles) / (90 seconds) or

0.333333 X 10**16 miles/second.


The speed of light is 186,000 miles/second.

So the average expansion rate for that first 90 seconds was:


(0.333333 X 10**16 miles/second) / (186,000 miles/second) or

0.0000017921136039 X 10**16 times the speed of light, or

17,921,136,039 times the speed of light

OK, I could have made an error.

[perfessor]

Yeah, it's hard to get one's head around such numbers.

In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10 e26 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10 e78. (note: this is 1 followed by 78 zeros! But that doesn't mean anything was actually travelling that fast - my add)

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of the fabric of space-time. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.

It is not known exactly when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang.

Slightly off-topic: I heard a funny story about Sir Arthur Eddington, famous physicist from the early 20th century. Someone said to him "I hear you're one of only three people on Earth who understand Dr. Einstein's theories." Eddington thought for a moment and said, "Who's the third?"