Catalyst
8:00pm – 8:32pm ABC 1
Custom Universe
Classified: G Genre: Science and Technology
Special on the universe, examining some of the ‘Big Questions’, including answers from several of the world’s top astrophysicists.

…might take a squiz
I’ve always thought that Catalyst should be an hour long program.

I’ve always thought that Catalyst should be an hour long program.

at least.

So was it any good?

Physicists can be philosophers when no proof is required…

It was fairly “general” …almost commercial.

Their explanation of the Universe before the big bang, describing how our Universe was contained in a space the size of a grape. They used phrases like ‘our Sun and planet Earth’ were contained in a space the size of a grape, before the big bang.

I don’t like this description because our Sun, planet, solar system and galaxy did not even exist as we know it before the big bang, they evolved from the expansion of the Universe.
Matter was in a completely different state, before the big bang.

Any thoughts?

Aquila said:

It was fairly “general” …almost commercial.

Their explanation of the Universe before the big bang, describing how our Universe was contained in a space the size of a grape. They used phrases like ‘our Sun and planet Earth’ were contained in a space the size of a grape, before the big bang.

I don’t like this description because our Sun, planet, solar system and galaxy did not even exist as we know it before the big bang, they evolved from the expansion of the Universe.
Matter was in a completely different state, before the big bang.

Any thoughts?

—-

I could repeat what I said but that would almost be tautology..

Aquila said:

It was fairly “general” …almost commercial.

Their explanation of the Universe before the big bang, describing how our Universe was contained in a space the size of a grape. They used phrases like ‘our Sun and planet Earth’ were contained in a space the size of a grape, before the big bang.

I don’t like this description because our Sun, planet, solar system and galaxy did not even exist as we know it before the big bang, they evolved from the expansion of the Universe.
Matter was in a completely different state, before the big bang.

Any thoughts?

Oh dear. I’m kinda glad I didn’t watch the program…

According to standard General Relativity time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. OTOH, we’re pretty certain that the equations of General Relativity do not correspond to physical reality under the extreme conditions that prevailed near the moment of the Big Bang. So we need some extension of GR that will apply in such conditions. It’s expected that such a theory will somehow incorporate both GR and quantum mechanics.

Various groups are working on different approaches to this unification, but currently all such theories are still very tentative. Not only is it extremely difficult to test their predictions of what happens in extreme conditions through experiment or astronomical observation, none of these extensions to GR are yet at the stage where they work convincingly on paper: the mathematics involved is so difficult that it’s hard for these theories to even make predictions of large-scale phenomena, even of stuff that we’re fairly sure that GR models correctly. In some cases, it’s not yet known if the new theory’s model is mathematically coherent, i.e., they’re nowhere near the stage where they can test if it makes sense physically because they’re not even sure if it makes sense mathematically.

Still, it’s possible to use the basic assumptions of some of these theories to speculate about things that are beyond current GR / QM. But I’d prefer to call such speculations philosophy rather than physics.

OTOH, we can be fairly confident in what GR says about the very early universe as long as we don’t get too close to the actual initial moment of the Big Bang. But how close is too close? We’re very confident that our models are valid down to less than a picosecond after the BB started. A billionth of a second may seem like almost nothing, but various important things are expected to have happened even earlier than that. See Wikipedia’s Graphical timeline of the Big Bang for more details.

So we’re fairly certain that the matter that now comprises our observable universe originated in a very tiny volume. Close to the BB, it may have been smaller than a grape – it may have even been smaller than an atom. Or it may never have been smaller than a basketball. :) Right now, we don’t know.

Physicists can be philosophers when no proof is required…

that’s why they had big grins on their faces.

they didn’t say before the BB. nothing they said was inconsistent with current theory of the speculation of fine tuning reasons etc.

Boris said:

they didn’t say before the BB. nothing they said was inconsistent with current theory of the speculation of fine tuning reasons etc.

Ah. Thanks, Boris. I was just going from what Aquila said.

PM 2Ring said:

Boris said:

they didn’t say before the BB. nothing they said was inconsistent with current theory of the speculation of fine tuning reasons etc.

Ah. Thanks, Boris. I was just going from what Aquila said.

I didn’t comprehend what Aquila said that was any way like what Catalyst said.

it was Krauss, Greene, Susskind, Davies etc.

Boris said:

it was Krauss, Greene, Susskind, Davies etc.

Rightio. Those guys know their stuff, and are generally very good at explaining it to the lay public. And even when they discuss stuff that goes beyond the currently accepted models they usually make it plain that that’s what they’re doing.

PM 2Ring said:

Boris said:

it was Krauss, Greene, Susskind, Davies etc.

Rightio. Those guys know their stuff, and are generally very good at explaining it to the lay public. And even when they discuss stuff that goes beyond the currently accepted models they usually make it plain that that’s what they’re doing.

Yes.. They did.

Transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3836881.htm

snippet:

Associate Professor Charley Lineweaver
And… Well, we think, ‘If they’re moving away from us now, earlier they were closer to us and closer to us and closer to us. And so we extrapolate that back to a time in which everything was on top of everything else, and that’s what we call the Big Bang.

NARRATION
Modern astrophysicists, like LA’s Sean Carroll, now know that our entire world was once packed into a space smaller than a grape.

Dr Sean Carroll
And the amazing thing is we’re talking about not only was the whole Earth squeezed into that size, but 100 billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies were all squeezed into a little region of space that big.

Professor Lawrence Krauss
So it’s hard to imagine, with a straight face that we can talk about everything being contained in a region that small, but we can.

Aquila said:

Transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3836881.htm

snippet:

Associate Professor Charley Lineweaver
And… Well, we think, ‘If they’re moving away from us now, earlier they were closer to us and closer to us and closer to us. And so we extrapolate that back to a time in which everything was on top of everything else, and that’s what we call the Big Bang.

NARRATION
Modern astrophysicists, like LA’s Sean Carroll, now know that our entire world was once packed into a space smaller than a grape.

Dr Sean Carroll
And the amazing thing is we’re talking about not only was the whole Earth squeezed into that size, but 100 billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies were all squeezed into a little region of space that big.

Professor Lawrence Krauss
So it’s hard to imagine, with a straight face that we can talk about everything being contained in a region that small, but we can.

Yes but they were talking about compressed matter.. The fact that they mentioned our solar system at all is a swimming pool or SydHarb ting.

roughbarked said:

Aquila said:

Transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3836881.htm

snippet:

Associate Professor Charley Lineweaver
And… Well, we think, ‘If they’re moving away from us now, earlier they were closer to us and closer to us and closer to us. And so we extrapolate that back to a time in which everything was on top of everything else, and that’s what we call the Big Bang.

NARRATION
Modern astrophysicists, like LA’s Sean Carroll, now know that our entire world was once packed into a space smaller than a grape.

Dr Sean Carroll
And the amazing thing is we’re talking about not only was the whole Earth squeezed into that size, but 100 billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies were all squeezed into a little region of space that big.

Professor Lawrence Krauss
So it’s hard to imagine, with a straight face that we can talk about everything being contained in a region that small, but we can.

Yes but they were talking about compressed matter.. The fact that they mentioned our solar system at all is a swimming pool or SydHarb ting.

I don’t know what you mean by the terms, “swimming pool or SydHarb ting”.

My point being, whether they are talking about “compressed matter” or matter expanding through space, their analogy of “100 billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies were all squeezed into a little region of space that big” (the size of a grape)….is just nonsensical.
Because the galaxies didn’t exist at that point. Matter was in a different state to what it is now.

they mean all the stuff that came to be all the galaxies, stars etc was in a space that large. you either have to put up with inaccuracies in speech when describing this stuff, and be able to realise these inaccuracies, or have them describe it mathematically and be more accurate and lose 99% of their audience.

The entire universe used to be squeezed into a volume no larger than the universe.

The entire universe used to be squeezed into a volume no larger than the universe.

correct.

It’s the 21st century, why do they still “dumb it down”….soo much?

Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?
Are we 100% sure that the Universe and all the matter there in, came to existance in this way?

>Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?

There are those who swear it was a controlled demolition.

Bubblecar said:

>Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?

There are those who swear it was a controlled demolition.

Quite a witty retort, when one thinks about it.
You deserve another glass of red.

Bubblecar said:

>Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?

There are those who swear it was a controlled demolition.

I think it was just a molition, the demolition comes later, much later.

Aquila said:

It’s the 21st century, why do they still “dumb it down”….soo much?

The general public are unbelievably stupid.

Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?

no scientific theory is proven beyond doubt. the BBT is pretty solid though.

It’s the 21st century, why do they still “dumb it down”….soo much?

to reach the greatest audience.

Are we 100% sure that the Universe and all the matter there in, came to existance in this way?

the BBT isn’t about genesis but about the evolution of the universe. we have no theory as to the initial event. we have speculation, which is what most of the show was about.

Divine Angel said:

Aquila said:

It’s the 21st century, why do they still “dumb it down”….soo much?

The general public are unbelievably stupid.

Even Virginia Trioli was banging on about an infinite number of universes might mean there is a ABC News Breakfast on Mars

Boris said:

Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?

no scientific theory is proven beyond doubt. the BBT is pretty solid though.

“pretty solid” is not conclusive by any means, hence my challenge to the analogy in the show.

Boris said:

It’s the 21st century, why do they still “dumb it down”….soo much?

to reach the greatest audience.

I say screw the “greater audience” I think this mindset holds us back, the type of people interested in a show like this are not brain dead, uneducated idiots.
I’m not saying turn it into a University astrophysics lecture but challenge our brains more, if someone interested in this type of science doesn’t understand all that is contained in the program, they seek out more understanding through research and reading…yes? Why keep it all mainstream, commercially lame?
You can add a bit more technicality and frame it in an easy to understand way, include some CGI, diagrams, whatever…creativity…etc.

Boris said:

Are we 100% sure that the Universe and all the matter there in, came to existance in this way?

the BBT isn’t about genesis but about the evolution of the universe. we have no theory as to the initial event. we have speculation, which is what most of the show was about.

The show can still be about speculation AND challenge peoples minds…a little, can’t it?
I’m not an astrophysicist, nor do I have a University degree but I still want to be intellectually challenged.

“pretty solid” is not conclusive by any means,

no scientific theory is though. that is how science works. it isn’t going to get any better then “pretty solid”.

The show can still be about speculation AND challenge peoples minds…a little, can’t it?

so you understood all that was said?

include some CGI, diagrams, whatever…creativity…etc.

nooooooooooo. diagrams maybe. no cgi cos that is usually crap and gives a totally wrong impression.

you want real stuff then check out susskind on youtube for his uni lectures.

We may never have a complete cosmology, because the empirical data required to distinguish between differing models may be forever out of our reach. Nonetheless, we can rest assured that the right model will be just as dry and technical as the wrong ones, and most people wouldn’t understand it anyway :)

Nonetheless, we can rest assured that the right model will be just as dry and technical as the wrong ones, and most people wouldn’t understand it anyway :)

yes. i think people see these shows and read these guys popular books and think they talk like that to their peers. they don’t.

Boris said:

Nonetheless, we can rest assured that the right model will be just as dry and technical as the wrong ones, and most people wouldn’t understand it anyway :)

yes. i think people see these shows and read these guys popular books and think they talk like that to their peers. they don’t.

Yeah, you just gotta listen to people like Brenders to realise these people are on a different level to us mere mortals and how much they have to “dumb it down” for the popular science books. Any holes you think you see in a theory are as a result of their description, not their understanding.

Boris said:

The show can still be about speculation AND challenge peoples minds…a little, can’t it?

so you understood all that was said?

I can say, I don’t understand the point of this question.
I’m challenging myself by creating this thread and posting about the show and challenging anyone who wants to help me along the path of further discovery.

)

My main beef was about the analogy used, which I’ve already mentioned.
I’m going to watch the show again, or at least read the transcript.
Maybe I’ll have more questions.. Thanks for everyone’s response so far, it is appreciated

My main beef was about the analogy used, which I’ve already mentioned.

i knew what he meant because i’ve read lots of books and websites and seen lots of videos so knew where he was coming from.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

this guy is probably one of the best to start with.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Boris said:

Nonetheless, we can rest assured that the right model will be just as dry and technical as the wrong ones, and most people wouldn’t understand it anyway :)

yes. i think people see these shows and read these guys popular books and think they talk like that to their peers. they don’t.

Yeah, you just gotta listen to people like Brenders to realise these people are on a different level to us mere mortals and how much they have to “dumb it down” for the popular science books. Any holes you think you see in a theory are as a result of their description, not their understanding.

I can appreciate this and understand what you’re saying here, I guess my main point was, that these programs dumb it down a little too much, that’s basically what I mean.

Boris said:

My main beef was about the analogy used, which I’ve already mentioned.

i knew what he meant because i’ve read lots of books and websites and seen lots of videos so knew where he was coming from.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

this guy is probably one of the best to start with.

Thanks for this link.

I would watch more youtube science videos if I could afford or was willing to pay for more data download with my internet plan, so this does restrict me in that sense.
Actually, I was just about to upgrade my data plan this month but my ISP recently increased their prices

(

yes, i agree. but like i said they cater for a slightly different audience than you’ll find on this site. we are together because we have an interest in science and know a little about it.

Aquila said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Boris said:

Nonetheless, we can rest assured that the right model will be just as dry and technical as the wrong ones, and most people wouldn’t understand it anyway :)

yes. i think people see these shows and read these guys popular books and think they talk like that to their peers. they don’t.

Yeah, you just gotta listen to people like Brenders to realise these people are on a different level to us mere mortals and how much they have to “dumb it down” for the popular science books. Any holes you think you see in a theory are as a result of their description, not their understanding.

I can appreciate this and understand what you’re saying here, I guess my main point was, that these programs dumb it down a little too much, that’s basically what I mean.

I hear ya, but I can see the benefits in presenting it the way they did. Everybody watching the show was able to understand the concept, even if they didn’t get around to being explained the details and added complexities.

Aquila said:

It’s the 21st century, why do they still “dumb it down”….soo much?

Due to the accelerating expansion of spacetime, science show audiences are getting dumber. :)

Aquila said:

Also, is the big bang theory proven beyond doubt?

As Boris said, you can’t prove a scientific theory. But you might be able to disprove it if you find conflicting evidence, or if you can show that it’s not internally consistent.

Aquila said:

Are we 100% sure that the Universe and all the matter there in, came to existance in this way?

Once again, as Boris said, BB theory doesn’t attempt to say anything about where the stuff came from at the very start of the Big Bang; it just purports to say what happened next.

In the BB diagram I linked to earlier , it shows that we have no idea what happened before the -430 mark, i.e., 10^-43 seconds after the start of the BB. Events from there up to the -360 mark are very vague: we assume that inflation happened from then until around the -320 mark, but the fine details of inflation theory are still not settled. But once we get to the -120 mark (one picosecond after the start of the BB), the beginning of the quark epoch, we are on much firmer ground.

Sure, we can’t observe the state of the universe in those very early epochs, but we do have various forms of indirect evidence that are consistent with BB theory. Modern astrophysics combines data derived from astronomical observation with our knowledge of how matter behaves under extreme conditions, which is derived from the Standard Model of particle physics. We use high energy particle collider experiments to verify (or alternatively, disprove) our theories about the fundamental nature of matter, so these collider experiments have ramifications for BB theory.

One of the early triumphs of modern astrophysics was that the theoretical proportions of the elements produced during the era of nucleosynthesis (3 minutes to 20 minutes after the start of the BB) is consistent with observed proportions of these elements. They don’t match exactly because various stellar nuclear reactions have modified the ratios slightly since then.

Thanks folks, for your links, references and ideas.
They’re sure to keep me occupied for a while.

*blink

)

Aquila said:

I say screw the “greater audience” I think this mindset holds us back, the type of people interested in a show like this are not brain dead, uneducated idiots.
I’m not saying turn it into a University astrophysics lecture but challenge our brains more, if someone interested in this type of science doesn’t understand all that is contained in the program, they seek out more understanding through research and reading…yes? Why keep it all mainstream, commercially lame?
You can add a bit more technicality and frame it in an easy to understand way, include some CGI, diagrams, whatever…creativity…etc.

Despite my joking remark in my previous post, I do agree with this. OTOH, there are lots of people who are curious about “space stuff” who are scared off by algebra. I’m tempted to say “stuff ‘em!”, but I’m not a TV show producer.

>> but I’m not a TV show producer.

But you do have lots of hands

>>we have no idea what happened before the -430 mark

Yes.. uh.. no, and I’ve a feeling that that could take a while.

>>Paul Davies thinks the universe is indeed fine-tuned for minds like ours. And who fine-tuned it? Not God, but minds from the future, perhaps even our distant descendants, that have reached back through time to the Big Bang and selected the very laws of physics that allow for the existence of minds in the first place. Sounds bizarre, but quantum physics actually allows that kind of thing.

>>It’s like a loop through time, stretching from the far future back to the Big Bang, the future selecting the past and the past allowing the future – mind-bogglingly, both causing each other.

———————-

This part does sound loopy.

Anyone understand how this could work?

no, but i’ll say…manyworlds and multiverse.

Ian said:

>>Paul Davies thinks the universe is indeed fine-tuned for minds like ours. And who fine-tuned it? Not God, but minds from the future, perhaps even our distant descendants, that have reached back through time to the Big Bang and selected the very laws of physics that allow for the existence of minds in the first place. Sounds bizarre, but quantum physics actually allows that kind of thing.

>>It’s like a loop through time, stretching from the far future back to the Big Bang, the future selecting the past and the past allowing the future – mind-bogglingly, both causing each other.

———————-

This part does sound loopy.

Anyone understand how this could work?

I guess that Paul is alluding to TIQM: the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics . I think TIQM is interesting, but I’m not comfortable with his statement about our descendants selecting the laws of physics.

The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. It was first proposed in 1986 by John G. Cramer, who argues that it helps in developing intuition for quantum processes, avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and resolves various quantum paradoxes.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/

“The Alternate View” columns
of John G. Cramer

“The Alternate View” columns of John G. Cramer are short (~2,000 word) essays about cutting-edge science. They are aimed at readers (and writers) of “hard” science fiction, as exemplified by the SF stories of Analog, but are about real science, usually physics or astronomy. These columns are published bimonthly in Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine.

read quite a few of his articles from here.

Boris said:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/

“The Alternate View” columns
of John G. Cramer

Thanks, Boris!

PM 2Ring said:

Boris said:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/

“The Alternate View” columns
of John G. Cramer

Thanks, Boris!

Thanks indeed.

The PM’s link did look a bit light-on :)

PM 2Ring said:

Boris said:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/

“The Alternate View” columns
of John G. Cramer

Thanks, Boris!

Thanks indeed.

The PM’s link did look a bit light-on :)

Whoa.. seem to have hit a large speed hump

(I blame Boris)

Boris said:

I’ve always thought that Catalyst should be an hour long program.

at least.

I personally prefer “Catalyst bytes”, the short version. The long version tends to either restate what I already know dumbed down to excruciating length, or be so completely politically motivated and scientifically wrong that I can’t bear to watch. Catalyst bytes is almost always the best stuff.

But I have to admit that the most recent Catalyst about the fine tuning of the universe was excellent, even though it didn’t say a single thing that I didn’t already know.