What is Your Opinion?

[Occams Ghost]

I have a set of questions you might want to answer. I have my own answers, but i'll leave this for you, the now.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

[Halcyon Dayz]

1. It fits the facts. Feelings have nothing to do with it.
2. Yes. No.
3. Don't know.
4. By definition not. Science is not theology.
5. Who knows? What is an object?
6. The universe sure looks like it.
7. Maybe, maybe not. If so, why so. If not, why not.

Beliefs have little to do with science.

[aurora]

I have my own answers,

then this may not be the appropriate area for this, might better fit in off topic babbling, or in general science, or even in ATM if you are proposing your answers for consideration.

[Occams Ghost]

Not so.

My answers are no more credible than the next. Anyone else care to answer my questions???

[Noclevername]

I have a set of questions you might want to answer. I have my own answers, but i'll leave this for you, the now.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

Snarky answer: I can't return it, I lost the receipt.

Scientific answer: Since BB is not one theory, but a number of theories with different premises trying to account for observed expansion, the question's not really answerable.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT,

2A: Maybe.

and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

2B: I doubt it.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

The parts we can observe and interact with are local.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

By definition, God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Odin, Zeus, L. Ron Hubbard, Crom and all other supernatural entities have nothing to do with theoretical physics.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

Don't know. If so, it hasn't been identified as such, so in practice, no.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

According to all evidence available, it's about 13.7 billion or thereabouts.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

Don't know enough about it to give a meaningful answer.

[antoniseb]

1. I am happy with it for what it does, which is explain in a consistent way the red shifts of galaxies, and the CMB. I think that it will be refined with time. It may never explain how it all started.

2. I hope we can find a GUT, but I don't see why it would require a mathematical model of the observer. Can you say why it would be necessary?

3. I think that for many practical purposes you can treat the universe as local. If some special circumstances arise in which we have to treat it as nonlocal, I won't be shocked, but we aren't there yet.

4. Please avoid theological discussions on this forum.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental objects? Probably not, but we might have seen evidence of them. As noted by HD above, what is an object? Also what is 'most fundamental'?

6. The universe is estimated by a few methods to be between 13.5 and 14 billion years old. I don't know where you got that 15-20 figure. I think this is an accurate assessment of the age of the Universe.

7. "true"? It certainly works to explain what we are seeing. If another explanation comes along that also explains what we are seeing AND explains something that Hubble Expansion can't, then perhaps I'll jump to the new idea. Do you have such an idea?

[Len Moran]

I have a set of questions you might want to answer. I have my own answers, but i'll leave this for you, the now.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

1. The big bang theories are not something to be happy or sad about. They attempt to explain observations in an objective manner. As to the cause of such a scenario, science offers no theory.

2. We may create a mathematical model, and it may even be of some use, but I don't consider it would be an "ultimate" explanation of nature. It would still be a model of an inaccessible underlying reality.

2a. What would you use to observe the "mathematical observer"?

3. There may be a mechanism that is something other than local in nature. But what that is would lie outside of what we can access using science.

4. The only requisite of theoretical physics is an acceptance that science suggests the existence of an underlying reality that is mind independent and hence inaccessible.

5. We have created models and called them electrons, photons etc. It is far from clear that we have detected fundamental objects with intrinsic properties.

6. Don't know.

7. Is a model ever "true"?

[Tim Thompson]

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?
6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?
7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

These are not independent questions. The universe can't have an age if it does not have a beginning, and the Hubble expansion is the expansion of the big bang. And I don't care much for the choice of words "happy with"; I haven't been to any big bang parties lately, and I have never heard cheers for Hubble during Happy Hour. Let us say that as scientific theories go, the big bang is well conceived; it is founded on the simplest interpretation of observations, and it is consistent with the large body of observations made since the theory was first introduced.

2. Do you believe that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

Personally, I am impressed with string theory, and it leads me to think that we will find a "theory of everything", or GUT if you prefer. I don't know what a mathematical model of the observer is supposed to be, so I don't know how to answer that part.

3. Do you believe the universe is local or non-local?

I have no idea.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

It certainly seems that observation of high energy particle interactions are consistent with the existence & observation of quarks. Strings have certainly not been observed yet. Leptons are supposed to be fundamental, like quarks, and they certainly have been observed (i.e., electrons). So, some observed, some not.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

4. Please avoid theological discussions on this forum.

(from Banned Posters Log post 353): Let me remind all members: we do not want threads in this forum to cover religious topics except narrowly where it pertains directly to astronomy or spaceflight.

My narrow answer is that science requires all known phenomena to be either explained in terms of other known phenomena, or to simply remain unexplained. The point of this approach is that there will always be somebody (and maybe several sombodies) willing to do the work to find out how to know the cause for those phenomena which remain unexplained. But if we simply assign some placeholder explanation, it stifles the desire to learn. Why bother to try to figure out anything, if you think you already know the answer?

[John Mendenhall]

I'll tell you my answers if you tell me yours (first).

Keep in mind the narrow scope of #4 permitted on this forum.

[tdvance]

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

yep--it seems to work for now

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

yes, no.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

nonlocal (Bells inequalities seem to require it)

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

abstain from answering.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

probably.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

more like 13.8 (last I'd read), but that's in the ballpark

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

could get into "what is truth" here, but short answer--we observe it, Cccam's razor says don't assume it's a clever and elaborate fiction, so it's true.

[Ken G]

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

Deliriously. It is by far among the small handful of best theories science has ever manufactured, in terms of its consistency, agreement with observation, and predictive power. That does not mean it may not undergo considerable changes in the future, as did Newton's theories. This answer extends to #6 and #7.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

I believe we will one day unify gravity with the other forces, but by then this may no longer be termed a GUT. We may have learned our lesson by then and avoid grandiose claims of finality. The theory will almost certainly not involve any model of the observer, nor will it need to to accomplish its goals.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

Neither. I believe that for some things, local models suffice, for others, we need nonlocal models (that encode nonlocal information like multiple-particle wave functions), and many other things will not succumb to either type of modeling. The universe is quite a bit different from our models of it.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

No, there is no way to claim scientifically that one has detected the most fundamental anything.

[FriedPhoton]

I'm going to answer these prior to reading the thread just so I can see who is like-minded and who is not without being biased by other people's opinions and comments.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

It works for me. I haven't developed my own theory yet, once I have I'll probably say the big bang is rubbish.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

Wow, great question. Yes I think we'll develop a unified theory and yes I think our perception will have to be taken into account at some point.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

You got me on this one. You are using a term I'm not familiar with if my assumptions are correct.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

I think...

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

No. I personally know of many things that are smaller but I'm keeping it a secret until I have a patent on the microverse.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

No. It has only been around for thirty seconds.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

I believe empirical evidence has shown it to be true, has it not?

[dgavin]

I have a set of questions you might want to answer. I have my own answers, but i'll leave this for you, the now.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

Yes, and no, I think the BB is only part of a greater Cyclic Universe therory, we just don't know enough yet to say for certain.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

Yes, and I think it will have to account for observer as the act of observation does effect things at the quantum level.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

It's Local, there is nothing to say the the circumstances that made this univers didn't happen elsewhere or elsewhen, or both.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

No, it should not be a requisit, at all. I do belive in a God but personaly think he left this stuff for us to figure out on our own.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

No, were still missing some Quarks even.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

Everything seems to point that direction.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

It's likely true, however this is subject to change or ammendment if new physics are developed because Gravitons, Tacheons or Cronitons are discovered.

[Occams Ghost]

I'll tell you my answers if you tell me yours (first).

Keep in mind the narrow scope of #4 permitted on this forum.

... On that note everyone, thanks for your interesting, and yet mixed replies.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

I am unhappy about the nature of something coming from nothing. I also have problems with a singular spacetime region. If everything is somehow predetermined in this universe, i find a totally lawless region very hard to comprehend. I am liking the idea of linking tunnelling with the universe - a theory stating that the universe ''tunelled'' into existence, much like a particle can tunnel through a certain thickness in space and time.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

No. Too many things stand in the way of a ''definate unified theory.'' For intance, imagine we created a unified model. What equation is there to stand in the way of some chaotic system taking over? Also, how does one define the uncertainty principle?

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

Maybe just a local universe. I don't hold entanglement as definate proof of a non-locality. Bells hypothesis only showed it was possible to measure entangled photons. However, superluminal information can also answer for the action at spooky distances.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

Not really. Some see God as being somehow ''outside'' the conventional physical rules.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

No. There are such particles as ''solitons...'' hypothesized particles that are even smaller than the Planck Box... of... 1.616 x 10^-33

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

I think we don't have enough evidence to have a precise calculation.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

It is a useful tool for big bang. It is also well-established, but time will tell if the shift was indeed a cause of something other than some expansion from an infinitessimal point in spacetime.

[Ken G]

I am unhappy about the nature of something coming from nothing.

But that is not part of the Big Bang theory, it is part of the popular philosophy many people associate with the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory, at it's core, is the assertion that the universe was much much hotter and denser 13.7 billion years ago, to the point that the temperature was high enough at some point to create the baryons we find in our universe, and then subsequently expanded and cooled to what we see today. That's all it is, it says nothing about the origin expressly because it's own physics breaks down before that point. That's nothing new, Newtonian physics breaks down at small scales and Galilean relativity breaks down at high speeds, yet we like them both to use them constantly.

I also have problems with a singular spacetime region. If everything is somehow predetermined in this universe, i find a totally lawless region very hard to comprehend.

The Big Bang model does not formally require a singularity, it merely extrapolates our physics as far back as we are capable of, and inserts a big ? at that point. That is a fair description of what science always does.

I am liking the idea of linking tunnelling with the universe - a theory stating that the universe ''tunelled'' into existence, much like a particle can tunnel through a certain thickness in space and time.

That would certainly be considered a Big Bang model-- so you like the BBT more than you realize.

Too many things stand in the way of a ''definate unified theory.''

It's not a DUT, it's a GUT. I agree the word "grand" is overstated, but the real point is, science is all about unification. The goal of science is to replace what is complicated by what is simple yet still as effective, or nearly so, and that's a pretty good definition of what "unification" means. So "grand unification" is synonymous with "grand science". A GUT has always been, and will always continue to be, the holy grail of science-- but we should not think the unification we achieve is ever "definite" or "ultimate", because the concept is not scientifically testable and history schools us differently.

[Professor Mayhem]

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

It fits all available data quite well. I have no doubt that it will have to be revised as more precise measurements become available, but as of yet there really isn't much to suggest that the big bang model of the universe is in any way a frivolous framework. My "happiness" doesn't really enter into it. I can be uncomfortable with it all I want. It isn't going to change the fact that the model is confirmed by virtually every observation.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

It does if we want to quantify it in any useful way.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

Could be both. From our limited observational framework however, the local will likely be taking precedent from now into the foreseeable future.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

No more than I think cosmic turtles holding up the earth or any other notion I conjure out of thin air should be requisite. When someone presents a remotely compelling set of observations suggesting that modern physics needs to include the invisible, incorporeal hand of omnipotent superbeings, I'll be more than happy to entertain the possibility.

As of now, there isn't anything remotely suggesting as much. Moreover, citing "god[s]" as a mechanism for anything has absolutely no explanatory value, and is therefore scientifically useless.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

I think a significant portion of them have been detected. At least enough to begin to formulate a larger picture. I have little doubt that there will be more, though.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

All signs point to yes.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

See above.

[Tim Thompson]

I am unhappy about the nature of something coming from nothing. I also have problems with a singular spacetime region.

Like Ken G already said. Both of these are misinterpretations of big bang cosmology; it does not include any concept of "something coming from nothing", and the singularity is not physical, it is only an artifact of the mathematical theory. So if you still feel the need to be uncomfortable with big bang cosmology, you will have to come up with reasons based on a proper interpretation of big bang cosmological models.

[John Mendenhall]

Good job, Occam.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

It works. BB makes testable predictions, and the observations support the predictions.

2. Do you believe that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

No. But we'll get closer. A mathematical model of the observer is an interesting idea. Self-referencing may not be practical, as in predicate logic.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

Local, to the extent that transmission of information is limited to c.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

Which God?

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

No. We know that there are scientists whose careers are built on strings, but the strings themselves have not been detected.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

It's 13 something according to the latest, and the error bars are getting smaller.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

Ah, a chance for an infinite loop. Go to Question #1.

[Michael Noonan]

I have a set of questions you might want to answer. I have my own answers, but i'll leave this for you, the now.

I too have a set of answers.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

No, but not able to discuss this in Q/A.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

I believe it is essential. As for the observer are you asking re a physical observer with a co-ordinate position or a metaphysical observer?

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

Not willing to risk another suspension.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

As a meme it is a more modest approach until people object.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

Not willing to risk another suspension.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

Missed it the first go, could you start it again and I'll hit the button on my stopwatch.

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

I will agree to its accuracy and ah ... not willing to risk another suspension.

You may never know just how much I wanted to answer those questions.

[AccuJimmy]

I have a set of questions you might want to answer. I have my own answers, but i'll leave this for you, the now.

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?

1. For the most part, yes
2. Yes, no
3. non
4. NO
5. Not yet
6. Nope
7. Yes

[Sp1ke]

It seems to me like the first question is the key one. Happiness or otherwise with a theory is not relevant.

On a scientific forum, the question should be "Is the big bang theory (collection of theories) the best explanation we have for our observations?" If not, what is a better answer that explains the observations at least as well, if not better?

[Ken G]

Indeed, for me, "happiness with a theory" and "is it the best explanation we have" are precisely the same things. What other basis would I apply, I am made happy by seeing our fragile minds come up with something that works.

[dgavin]

Now for the funny version:

1. Are you happy with big bang theory?
No, I'm a firm supporter of the Big Cheese theroy, of the Chedar variant.

2. Do you beleive that we will discover a GUT, and if you do, do you think it requires a mathematical model of the observer?
Yes, guts were discovered when some first men tripped and acidently cut his belly open on a sharp stick.

3. Do you beleive the universe is local or non-local?
It's Long Distance.

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?
No, but I do thank the anagram should be. Dogs. Big Dogs, Litle Dogs, Hound Dogs. The universe would not be complete without Dogs.

5. Have we detected the most fundamental of objects (quarks)/v's\(strings)?
Yes, about 8 years ago a study idenditifed them as the Politicus Cranius particle.

6. Is the universe really 15-20 billion years old?
No, according to Bugs Bunny it's only 3 and a half years old. Bugs Rules!

7. Is the Hubble Expansion true or not?
Bubbles Expand, but to make Hubble Expand would probably take going back in time and breaking his telescopes. I'm almost certain something would flare up after that.

[Gillianren]

4. Do you think God should be a requisite of theoretical physics?

Which God?

Best answer yet!

[Occams Ghost]

It's dangerous to name a God, so let tha question remain personal.

As for he first question, and general concerns, i suppose it was worded wrong. I only stated it like this, because if we where ''generally happy'' with a thing, we tend not to investigate its validity.

[neilzero]

I liked The Halcon Dayz answers. I don't know much. 4 The tentative conclusions of science neither support nor negate God. Neil

[Sp1ke]

As for he first question, and general concerns, i suppose it was worded wrong. I only stated it like this, because if we where ''generally happy'' with a thing, we tend not to investigate its validity.

I'd say that most astronomers and cosmologists are ''generally happy'' with the big bang theories in that they are the best explanation so far of our observations. But also there are many, many scientists actively involved in investigating its validity and trying to find a better explanation.

[Ken G]

Yes, I don't think it is logically supportable that someone does not continue to investigate a theory they are happy with. Are not biologists happy with evolution? Does this mean they do not continue to try and investigate the fossil record? Are not astronomers happy with our models of the solar interior, yet do they continue to try to figure out what causes the solar cycle? Etc. A good model is not the ending point for science, it is a particularly useful jumping off point, generally leading to much more fruitful results than stumbling in the dark working on a "Tower of Babel" of different possible theories that just don't suffice. This is one of the main points of a scientific model: to focus and accelerate future developments, not to end them.

[Occams Ghost]

Well... I'm not happy about string theory, and i don't study it.

[Sp1ke]

You might not study it but there are plenty who do. And will continue to do so until it's found to be:
1) Self-contradictory
2) Contradicted by experiment or observation
3) Superseded by a better theory
And even then it'll probably be occasionally revisited in case there are any new things to learn from it.