Comments on: The Big Bang Theory – Part II http://www.thulasidas.com/2008-11/the-big-bang-theory-part-ii.htm Perception and Physics. Science and Spirituality. Life and Work. Money and Quantitative Finance. Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:08:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Manoj http://www.thulasidas.com/2008-11/the-big-bang-theory-part-ii.htm/comment-page-1#comment-142 Manoj Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:28:25 +0000 http://www.thulasidas.com/?p=615#comment-142 Thanks for your comment, Trent. Although I have some background in physics, I am pretty much a beginner when it comes to BB cosmology. I think where people like you and me have trouble is when physicists treat their theories as "real," or when we think they do. I guess the smarter ones do not think of their theories as anything more than mathematical models. I remember reading Feynman once describe an electron as possibly a mathematical concept -- after having developed QED! Similarly, BB is perhaps only a framework that seems to hold a few observed properties together in neat equations. I still have problems with the assumptions at its foundation though. Space and time, in my view, are a cognitive representation of our senses. Saying that they started from a singularity (or small region) is as silly as saying that sound and smell started from a small region! IMHO... - cheers, - Manoj Thanks for your comment, Trent.

Although I have some background in physics, I am pretty much a beginner when it comes to BB cosmology.

I think where people like you and me have trouble is when physicists treat their theories as “real,” or when we think they do. I guess the smarter ones do not think of their theories as anything more than mathematical models. I remember reading Feynman once describe an electron as possibly a mathematical concept — after having developed QED! Similarly, BB is perhaps only a framework that seems to hold a few observed properties together in neat equations.

I still have problems with the assumptions at its foundation though. Space and time, in my view, are a cognitive representation of our senses. Saying that they started from a singularity (or small region) is as silly as saying that sound and smell started from a small region! IMHO…

– cheers,
– Manoj

]]> By: Trent http://www.thulasidas.com/2008-11/the-big-bang-theory-part-ii.htm/comment-page-1#comment-141 Trent Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:12:56 +0000 http://www.thulasidas.com/?p=615#comment-141 It's quite rewarding when someone with a solid grounding in science introduces the same problem as a laymen like myself has always had with the Big Bang theory. i.e. that space is not really part of the equation in the pre-BB 'universe.' The other issue I've had is also connected to the points you have raised. i.e. if time didn't exist pre-BB, yet time is required for any chemical reaction then how did the BB actually take place given that there can't be any preparatory events leading to the reaction that caused the BB. In fact if time didn't exist then the BB can't be said to have even taken place (as there was no time) I know it's probably amusing to hear a laymen pondering these two elements, having no solid grounding in science, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this further It’s quite rewarding when someone with a solid grounding in science introduces the same problem as a laymen like myself has always had with the Big Bang theory.
i.e. that space is not really part of the equation in the pre-BB ‘universe.’

The other issue I’ve had is also connected to the points you have raised.
i.e. if time didn’t exist pre-BB, yet time is required for any chemical reaction then how did the BB actually take place given that there can’t be any preparatory events leading to the reaction that caused the BB. In fact if time didn’t exist then the BB can’t be said to have even taken place (as there was no time)

I know it’s probably amusing to hear a laymen pondering these two elements, having no solid grounding in science, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this further

]]>