[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by neutralino where is your quibble?

The fact is I made that statement before I have the chance of reading some explanations in Steven Weinberg's 'The First Three Minutes' or should we say 'The First Three and A Quarter Minutes'? It's all a matter of time. If we have all the time in the world then we can explain everything down to the last hair particle.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The fact is I made that statement before I have the chance of reading some explanations in Steven Weinberg's 'The First Three Minutes' or should we say 'The First Three and A Quarter Minutes'? It's all a matter of time. If we have all the time in the world then we can explain everything down to the last hair particle.

Well you should have just admitted you were incorrect then, instead of wasting both of our time. It doesn't make one any less of a scientist if one makes mistakes!

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by neutralino admitted you were incorrec

To admit that I am incorrect is to accept what they said but to say that they cannot explain something is merely to imply that I still not convince by their efforts. That only means that I will investigate further but keep in mind what they said.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao To admit that I am incorrect is to accept what they said but to say that they cannot explain something is merely to imply that I still not convince by their efforts. That only means that I will investigate further but keep in mind what they said.

To state that standard cosmology cannot explain this ratio is categorically incorrect. You could say "I'm not sure whether I believe that the standard cosmology explains the ratio," but you should note that these two phrases are not the same. To anyone reading this thread your comment reads as if it is the general consensus whereas in fact it is your opinion. It is very important to ensure that these two differing views remain distinct.

If you ask anyone who knows anything about the standard model, they will tell you that the agreement of the hot big bang model with predictions regarding the abundance of He atoms is one of the four "pillars" of the theory.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by neutralino they will tell you that the agreement of the hot big bang model

Their implicit consensus is that they all agreed to the exact time. But from the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, if time is exact then the energy (temperature) is not. But the temperature is exact then the time is not. So, take your pick. Are you for exact time or for exact energy?

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Their implicit consensus is that they all agreed to the exact time. But from the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, if time is exact then the energy (temperature) is not. But the temperature is exact then the time is not. So, take your pick. Are you for exact time or for exact energy?

I'm not sure I understand this.

"They all agreed on the exact time." What did, all the big bang models? What do you mean by the latter part of this sentence? That the model agrees with the observations on the time the He nuclei were formed? I'm not sure what this has to do with the uncertainty principle. We know the temperature the universe was at this time (through observations of the CMB now) and we also know that these He nuclei must have formed before stars formed, since they are present in the core of the stars, so it doesn't matter whether we know the exact time they formed; we only need to know that it was before the stars formed.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by neutralino I'm not sure what this has to do with the uncertainty principle.

That makes two of us. If you are sure then you have united general relativity with quantum mechanics. Cosmologists, to me, are just quantum theorist wannabes. They want to use equations of general relativity to explain things happening at the quantum level of space-time.

[dleviwing]

Gentlemen;
Both of you are half right or half wrong. The date stamp cannot be determined to any degree of certainty however; within the degree of certainty the current standard model does support the ratio. Let’s not give the creationist any more scientific doubt or bickering to support their cause.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Let’s not give the creationist any more scientific doubt or bickering to support their cause.

This was one of my main points, although I guess I didn't express it explicitly enough. On reading the original post, someone who is not well versed in the standard model may very well draw interpretations that it does not agree with this particular observation. This may very well lead to some theory, elsewhere on this forum, to state that in their presentation of the new theory, and then use this thread to back it up.

[N0B0DY]

Does anyone here know if t0 = T0?