I previously reeled off a list of physics areas I covered in a maths degree. In addition said courses put me in a better position to do my PhD then those who went to the same university to do physics.
And said PhD, which was quite mathematical, put me in better stead to get my job than a more experimental one might have.
Why wouldn't I know this? Because I disagree with your view on how maths and physics relate to one another and are used in science?
Having a few vague analogies to aid understanding is fine but if you're guided purely on the grounds of personal physical intuition you won't get far in physics, mathematical or otherwise. The stuff in line with our intuition was the first stuff to be examined by science as it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. As time has progressed we've understood so much of the 'easy to understand' stuff a great many areas of physics are now into the realms of things you need specialist equipment to measure and are thus outside common experience.
Basing work on physical intuition got use Newtonian mechanics but only once we could accurately measure speeds close to that of light did we find NM isn't precisely accurate. Basing work on physical intuition got us basic gas laws and some fluid mechanics but once we could make superfluids or detect individual particles we found things outside of any normal experience.
Intuition based on everyday experience only gets you so far, but (to use your comment) you wouldn't know that.
You still fail to explain what you're talking about properly. Does a brick expand and lose pressure when you drop it? No. Does it cool down? Depends what the surroundings are and its present temperature. Open the top of a pressurised container of gas and it'll expand and cool but falling has nothing to do with it. Pressure, temperature and volume changes are fluid based processes and can be independent of gravity, just as accelerating under gravity can be separate from the aforementioned processes.
I apologise for having to interpret your meaning due to your abysmal ability to form a coherent description of your own thoughts.
The 'belief' of which you speak is not like religious belief, in that we have a great many independent but corroborating phenomena which align with the models we've constructed and thus have experimental evidence for. Sure, it might be wrong but the belief in it being a viable model of how part of the universe works is entirely justified.
And you suppose that all the people who do cosmology, using such things as the FRW metric, which is a solution to the Einstein field equations which govern GR, don't know about black holes? Or that people who do black holes in GR don't know about the big bang?
Clearly there are plenty of people who know about both the BB model and black holes. In fact people like Hawking and Penrose talk a great deal about such things. Even if you did no reading (and didn't understand the material even if you did do the reading) this should suggest to you there isn't a contradiction. Clearly you haven't managed to realise this and you also haven't gone out finding if anyone else has considered such a thing. And you aren't, either in the world or even on this forum.
Suppose the Sun disappeared right now (setting aside the issue of defining 'now' in relativity). It'd take about 8.5 minutes for the last light emitted to reach Earth and then the sky would go black. But gravitational changes also propagate as the speed of light so the Earth would continue orbiting as normal till the 'last emissions' in the gravitational field reached us, like the light, at which point the Earth would stop orbiting and move in a straight line. Now suppose the Sun reappears an hour later. Again, it takes 8.5 minutes for the light and gravitational changes to move through space to reach Earth During that time the Earth is unaware the Sun is back, ie it is not in causal contact with the Sun for a period of time.
Suppose you did this with a rocket rather than the Earth. In that time, before the Sun's effects reach the rocket, you could move away from the old location of the Sun
without any resistance, as the gravitational pull of the Sun hasn't got to you yet. This sort of thing can occur in the early period of the universe, objects not in causal contact with one another don't interact, they don't know the other exists. Now suppose you have a tiny tiny tiny region of empty space, ie no space-time curvature, and you instantly put in a
huge amount of matter. If that huge influx of energy then causes the space-time expand outwards sufficiently fast to out pace the gravitational signals each particle sends out towards other particles then the density can drop below the amount needed for black hole formation
before an event horizon can form.
Sure, you have the question "How would such a configuration arise" but the fact remains that its entirely consistent within the realms of GR to have matter packed more dense than needed to form a black hole yet still expand
provided it does it very very quickly.
Penrose's book 'The Road to Reality' covers this in more detail, considering slews of appearing universes which are all ultra dense. Most of them don't expand fast enough to escape their own event horizon and recollapse but a few manage it. Susskind has a
paper on the same thing, considering sets of universe, most of which never get past subatomic sizes (see Figure 4). Much of Penrose and Hawking's work in regards to singularity existence theorems relate to this.
Hawking has also considered a collapsing universe which packs its matter into smaller and smaller regions and then 'bounces' back out into an expanding universe. In that work he specifically talks about the issue of causal connection between different regions of matter, even when the entire universe is smaller than a proton.
I'm not a cosmlogist, I took one course in it 5 years ago, so much of what I've just said is stuff an 'interested reader' can get from just Googling, Wiki'ing and putting in some time and effort. Try it.
Again, you try to insult me as if 'mathematician' means I don't know about physics. I'm certain I've got more physics experience than you. And you're just making unjustified assertions about expansions/contractions. I gave a specific example (shock diamonds) of familiar systems (fluid mechanics) exhibiting oscillatory phenomena.
Do you really think all of cosmology is just done by mathematicians who don't look out the window to observe the universe? General relativity is highly mathematical, so astrophysicists are required to be mathematical competent. Conversely plenty of mathematicians doing physics related stuff know a great deal about experiments.
If the matter was as black and white as you assert why hasn't it all just been chucked out? Do you think there's global conspiracy? Do you think the people doing cosmology know nothing of experiments? Why is it your grasp of this stuff is so superior when you have no experience with any physics relevant to the issue? You complain about mathematicians but even if I were to grant your view as valid at least the mathematicians have models and make predictions. You, on the other hand, have
nothing, no theoretical understanding or experimental experience, to base your claims on.
You trying to insult someone because they are a mathematician is foolish in at least two ways. Firstly you have
less competency in physics than a mathematician. Secondly your view of how mathematics fits into physics is so warped and flawed that you just demonstrate your ignorance when you attempt such insults.
How do
you know its physics? You don't know physics, either theoretical or experimental.
I keep asking you what you're basing your position on and you have nothing. Why are
you an authority on what is or isn't viable when you have absolutely no experience with anything relevant?
I asked you previously to give references for your claims and you ignored it, so I find it funny you ask me to provide some for mine.
And are you seriously going to try the "Have you seen it?" route? You do know we've got things like telescopes on mountains and in orbit watching the sky across pretty much the entire EM spectrum, right?
Hubble observed other galaxies and the red shifting due to their motion away from us is named in his honour. Since then we've observed billions of galaxies, all of whom's red shifting follows a particular pattern. We've seen supernova in distant galaxies (billions of light years away) whose spectrum we can determine due to knowledge in stellar evolution, nuclear physics, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and the pattern observed implies the rate of expansion of the universe isn't now as its always been. Then there's the CMB, first detected in the 60s and which we now have measured to parts per million and whose thermal properties imply the matter in the observable universe was once close enough to be approximately equal in temperature but which was then carried away. As I just explained, an extreme and sudden expansion can account for this (ie how it was once close but didn't collapse), which must has slowed down since its not expanding like that any more. The variations in the CMB link to matter distribution due to gravitational red shifting. Then there's relative isotope abundances in the interstellar medium, which again points to particular expansion dynamics due to the amount of time it must have occurred for.
I personally haven't gone through all this material but that's because that's not my area of science. I know people who have and do though. And like with any area of science its up to the community to review each others work for mistakes, ie the best people for the job. I've reviewed work in quantum mechanics for a journal because that's what I'm familiar with. Before you trot out the "You're all just covering for one another" conspiracy story scientists are like any other group of people, not everyone gets on with everyone else. If you want another reason there's no conspiracy its because someone who demolishes an entire area of physics with the right experiment or the right reasoning makes a name for themselves so unless you believe everyone in the cosmology research communities are best pals, despite them being from many different countries, communities, schools of thought, religions and ideologies, any argument which involves "That mainstream thing can't be true because of this high school fact I was taught decades ago" is baseless.
There's plenty of evidence out there and its more available than ever. Go to ArXiv and use the search engine, you can look at pretty much every physics and maths paper from the last 15 years free. You can get the experimental results and see how they are compared with models. You can see it all for yourself, so this "Have you seen it?" line of argument only serves to make you look even more intellectually dishonest because if you'd done any reading you'd already know there's plenty of freely available material for you to examine. Whether you possess the necessary skills to understand it is another matter.
Its certainly possible. If you can construct a model involving that which predicts the same things as the current ones then it'd certainly be worth publishing. However, if you only
think it'd be simpler and you make no attempt to see if any sort of model is forthcoming then you're just basing your claims on nothing, ie you know what answer you want and you're supposing some explaination exists which squares with it. The important thing for any scientist to do is to develop and
test their models.
Actually its quite simple. Initially the universe is very very small and filled with a completely homogeneous and isotropic structure-less concentration of matter which then expands. All the relevant space-time dynamics can be obtained from the equations of motion of the FRW metric, which is literally a homework exercise for undergrads.
Personally I find fluid mechanics much harder, there's a great deal about fluids we don't understand, the dynamics of the FRW metric are well understood and the structure-less matter I mentioned is extremely simple, as its
structureless.
Also bear in mind that there's no reason to think the origins and dynamics of the
entire universe should be simple. Why should the universe itself be within the ability of a human mind? There's nothing special about our brains, we got it via evolution and its developed to solve problems we face in everyday life (when you live off the land in hunter-gatherer groups that is), it hasn't developed with any need to fathom the origins of space-time and matter. You find mainstream science complicated because you have no experience of it, just as I find Japanese hard to understand as I don't have any experience of it. With time and effort you might understand some physics other people understand and developed but that's at least in principle within your grasp as its stuff other humans have understood. The universe's inner workings may simply be beyond anyone's grasp.
A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler (Einstein). Given two theories of equal predictive power you take the one with the least assumptions but if the one with more assumptions is more powerful a predictor than you use it.
For instance, Newtonian physics is simpler than relativity but its less accurate. I've given this example before, please explain what you don't understand about that.
If you can come up with a model which explains all the things the big bang model does,
quantitatively, yet assumes less then its worth publishing. Presently no such model exists and so even though we'd all like a simpler model of the universe's early life we stick with the best model, even if its 'complicated'.
And your experimental evidence for this is.....?
For any future discussion please bear in mind that if you're going to make assertions about the nature of Nature you're going to have to provide evidence/references. I know you want the universe to be a certain way and you think, based on absolutely zero knowledge or experience, its a certain way but simply asserting it in the absence of
any reason isn't going to sway me or anyone else.
Where's your 'theory'? I asked you to provide a
WORKING model but you have nothing. Models need to
model, you have no model. Theories are models which has passed experimental tests, the predictions of their models are verified as accurate.
Until you can give me a model for the thermal distribution of the CMB, the ratios of various light isotopes and the red shift distribution of galaxies and supernova observed yo have no model, so comparing the BB to 'your theory' is like comparing apples and ....
nothing.
Yes yes, you're looking into the future because you're a visionary and all of science is stuck in the past
Let me know when you can model even 1 relevant phenomenon.
Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm not a real scientist because I'm not buying what you're selling.
Perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by 'a real scientist'? What are the necessary requirements? Degree? Masters? PhD? Published work? Applied knowledge of science to real world problems? Collaborated with people doing the same? Taught others? Paid to do it? Or were you going for something along the lines "Agrees with astrocat" and "Owns a white coat"?
How many of them apply to you?
