One o' them Jesus lovers being smart...Bose-Einstein cond

Post Reply New Topic

A Bose-Einstein condensate requires temperatures approaching absolute zero. Conditions following the Big Bang were characterized by extreme heat, suggesting that if any temperature concepts can be said to have applied before it went Bang, said concepts would have to involve heat rather than cold.

However, before the Bang, there was no universe for a Bose-Einstein condensate to exist in. The question as phrased is utterly meaningless; Fnord is correct in that it belongs in the forum devoted to philosophy, not the one devoted to science.

nucleosynthesis started a few minutes after the big bang and lasted some 15 minutes or so… in this period protons (as in hydrogen ions) and neutrons fusion into atomic nuclei.

more than 375,000 years after the big bang, the first hydrogen atoms start to form; it took some time to cool the universe down enough so that the nuclei could capture and bind the electrons and form the atoms as we know them today.

That is quite correct. A scientific hypothesis, principle or theory must be (at least in principle) capable of empirical falsification. A hypothesis that explains everything (including things which contradict it) explains NOTHING.

ruveyn

Useful though it (presumably) is to have that re-stated - could the thread now be allowed to continue on its merry speculative way, however pointless you might consider that to be?
No-one is obliged to respond here.

Very ignorant comments.

I'll cleared out my account, I won't bother trying to talk with potential social dangers like these two...

You’re quite a fortune teller then, aren’t you, asking only questions you know will have an answer…? You don’t know a dead-end, until you end up in a one – not in mathematics, not in physics, not in science.

With the question as rephrased, the answer is no. Again, a Bose-Einstein condensate can only exist at temperatures approaching absolute zero; immediately following the Big Bang, the defining characteristic of the baby universe was heat.

If you want to ask philosophical questions, there's a forum for that; if you want to ask questions about physics, but clearly have absolutely no understanding of the topic, I am under no obligation to save your tender little feelings by acting as if your opinion about the possible answer were every bit as valid as the actual correct answer. The hard sciences are not matters of opinion, and how you feel about them doesn't matter.

Vis, the question originally asked can have no answer; the very theory of the Big Bang itself forever closes off to us the question of what might have gone before, or in fact if "before the Big Bang" is a term with any meaning whatsoever. It's quite plausible that time, entropy, duration, what have you, began as the monobloc erupted, and could have no meaning at all until that event. There was no "before" because there was no time for "before" to exist in. It was a singularity - a point at which mathematics and physics simply do not apply. This doesn't take "fortune telling", just a basic knowledge of physics.

I do have an understanding of the universe. I have a letter of recommendation from NASA regarding how well I can visualize and communicate the ideas they wish to express through 3d animations.

I do know the temperature of the universe was very hot. Perhaps while I am in the process of visualizing this, and I might examine an analog to convey this. I am in the process right now, I'll make sure you get a TV listing so you can avoid it.

Perhaps the question was asked to spur discussion, rather than to sound arrogant and condescending, as your reply does. Sometimes very smart people like myself occasionally delve into something that is far beyond the capacity of simple folk like yourself. I only say this because you felt an editorializing was in order, rather than simply say "no." Since I have to make this video understandable to simple persons like yourself, I asked the question, only to ridiculed for asking. You continued the ridicule. It makes you seem very small and insecure to me.

Just think, several of you could have guided my work, rather you choose to just be less than respectful about it.

I am just tired of the lack of simple respect for others. Face to face, I'll bet you would be less obnoxious.

I also have to visualize the concept of negative absolute zero temperatures. as discussed here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/P ... ature.html

Are you going to b***h at me about any questions I might throw out about that?

Ok is this thread about the continual discussion of Science vs Religion?

Abiogenesis nor Creation (Intelligent Design) can't be conclusively proven. So why bother.

Certainly God's hand did not come down (as expected by some) and Smite the Large Hadron Collider upon it being turned on any more than the LHC was able to conclusively discover the Higgs Boson.

As a logical thinker, I tend to believe that Creationism and Intelligent design are utterly craptastic ways to believe things happened. Thats my opinion. An opinion to the contrary is merely a persons choice, and as such they are entitled.

/me exits stage left......

If a substance that replicates itself and exists far from thermodynamic equilibrium (the practical definition of living) can be made from non living ingredients it would prove that abiogenesis is possible.

ruveyn

No, the title is a joke, Obvious too!

It depends on what kind of matter you're talking about. For example, the dense nuclear matter in the cores of neutron stars can have properties of superfluids and Bose-Einstein condensates and it is extremely hot. However, that matter is made up of a fluid of neutrons and other exotic particle, it is not made up of atoms. Matter in the baby universe is likely to have been made up of quark gluon plasma.



Usually when people are asking about what happened "before" the Big Bang, they are really asking what it was and why it "banged". The Big Bang theory actualyy says nothing about the "Big Bang" itself. There are actually some extensions to the Big Bang theory like Eternal Inflation or Turok and Steinhart's Epkirotic model that provide suggestionsbut whether they are testable is debatable. The question actually requires a theory of quantum gravity, which we don't have.

Ruv,

I was attempting to be diplomatic. In my analytical mind, Abiogenesis makes miles more sense than Intelligent Design.

DeaconBlues, the very theory of big bang is a theory, a model, and therefore it does not close off anything but on a theoretical level. It is an established model based on a solid theoretical and observational ground, but nevertheless it is a theory – even if I agree. If you define answers before questions, you are as blinded by your faith as any religious maniac. Plus any answer is an answer - a dead-end included.

As my favorite Bohm emphasized, the ability to think or perceive differently is more important than what you have knowledge wise learned. Don’t get so intimidated by some speculations. The whole field of science is nothing but speculation, except maybe for those who have made it into a religion. As in any other scientific discussion, it is wise to state your arguments, but not to go on a personal crusade.

So, the scientific method is unimportant to this conversation. Great.

Would a moderator mind moving this thread into PPR? It's obviously nothing to do with math, science, or technology - and some of the posters want their personal opinions to be considered at least as valid as observable fact.

Then just leave, bully.