Genesis - Big Bang mash-up

[Regiomontanus]

Yes, and I think I understand why, science needs to seriously question the reality of a BB no boundary expanding universe that is the present preferred model?

Well, there are alternatives. But the current 'concordant' model is that because it works, because of its predictive power. It is not perfect and could be wrong. That we live in an expanding universe is certainly true, though.

 

[Altfish]

Genesis was never the same after Peter Gabriel left.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, there are alternatives. But the current 'concordant' model is that because it works, because of its predictive power. It is not perfect and could be wrong. That we live in an expanding universe is certainly true, though.

What is it expanding into though, that question needs answering, if the volume of space increases, then that increased spatial volume has to be coming from somewhere? And define the boundary of this spatial volume we call the bb universe?

 

[Regiomontanus]

What is it expanding into though, that question needs answering, if the volume of space increases, then that increased spatial volume has to be coming from somewhere? And define the boundary of this spatial volume we call the bb universe?

Nothing. Space itself is expanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nothing. Space itself is expanding.

But there is no evidence there is such a state as nothing afaik. You say it is not expanding into anything, that means nothing. This is not a word game.

 

[Regiomontanus]

But there is no evidence there is such a state as nothing afaik. You say it is not expanding into anything, that means nothing. This is not a word game.

Yeah, not an easy concept to wrap one's head around.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, not an easy concept to wrap one's head around

Well all the best with that Regiomontanus.

 

[gnostic]

Please bear with me and just provide me with your best straight answers as I try and understand a universe from nothing..

The answer to that is that the current model of the big bang theory has never postulated that the universe come from “nothing”.

You are still making claims about the BB that the BB astrophysicists never claimed.

All it does say is that the universe was almost infinitely hot & extremely dense - what they called the "singularity".

True nothingness cannot exist in the Universe, not even at this singularity. Absolute nothingness required there to be not only no matters (eg atoms) and particles, but also no energy, no fields of any kind, and not even space.

So if there are heat and energy in the singularity, then logically something still exist at the very instance of expansion.

Yes, I know that some theoretical physicists have postulate nothingness, like Lawrence Krauss. But you must remember that his book - A Universe From Nothing - is merely a theoretical speculation, it isn't even a hypothesis, as a hypothesis must have predictions that are potentially testable, which Krauss has not done in his book. Krauss is merely spinning his thoughts in the book. At best, it is a possible theoretical model, at worse, his concept is merely speculations, no better than unsubstantiated philosophy.

But going back to the nothingness. Even experiments have already demonstrated, where they have almost complete vacuum by removing matters and particles, and yet based on what Quantum Field Theory proposed, the vacuum is not completely empty, because the quantum fields still permeate the entire universe, including in the vacuum of space, and so energy still exist in the vacuum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The answer to that is that the current model of the big bang theory has never postulated that the universe come from “nothing”.

You are still making claims about the BB that the BB astrophysicists never claimed.

All it does say is that the universe was almost infinitely hot & extremely dense - what they called the "singularity".

True nothingness cannot exist in the Universe, not even at this singularity. Absolute nothingness required there to be not only no matters (eg atoms) and particles, but also no energy, no fields of any kind, and not even space.

So if there are heat and energy in the singularity, then logically something still exist at the very instance of expansion.

Yes, I know that some theoretical physicists have postulate nothingness, like Lawrence Krauss. But you must remember that his book - A Universe From Nothing - is merely a theoretical speculation, it isn't even a hypothesis, as a hypothesis must have predictions that are potentially testable, which Krauss has not done in his book. Krauss is merely spinning his thoughts in the book. At best, it is a possible theoretical model, at worse, his concept is merely speculations, no better than unsubstantiated philosophy.

But going back to the nothingness. Even experiments have already demonstrated, where they have almost complete vacuum by removing matters and particles, and yet based on what Quantum Field Theory proposed, the vacuum is not completely empty, because the quantum fields still permeate the entire universe, including in the vacuum of space, and so energy still exist in the vacuum.

I agree, there is no nothing. So presuming a BB beginning of the universe, there was something other than nothing pre-existing the BB.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I agree, there is no nothing. So presuming a BB beginning of the universe, there was something other than nothing pre-existing the BB.

Our physics break down at a certain point, which we call a singularity. There are some cyclic cosmologies that avoid that but the evidence for them is scant. Penrose and his team claim some evidence for a 'past universe' but it is so far rejected by just about every researcher in the field. But this is separate from your earlier question about what the universe is expanding into. The Universe is everything; it is not expanding into anything.


New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues – Physics World

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Our physics break down at a certain point, which we call a singularity. There are some cyclic cosmologies that avoid that but the evidence for them is scant. Penrose and his team claim some evidence for a 'past universe' but it is so far rejected by just about every researcher in the field. But this is separate from your earlier question about what the universe is expanding into. The Universe is everything; it is not expanding into anything.


New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues – Physics World

Thank you, I think there is still a lot of research ahead for science to understand fully the history of the universe.

 

[gnostic]

I agree, there is no nothing. So presuming a BB beginning of the universe, there was something other than nothing pre-existing the BB.

The BB models don’t even say anything about there being “before the BB” or of “pre-existing BB”.

The BB models only say that the “expansion” began with the Planck Epoch, with the 2 later models including the “cosmic inflation” (exponential expansion) that occurred shortly after the Planck. The main focus on the current model, is how fundamental particles formed, followed by formation of matters and that of large structures (stars, galaxies, etc), so it is mainly about the Observable Universe.

There are other theoretical models but so far they are “theoretical” (meaning mathematical plausible, but not scientifically probable) and more speculative, as they untested and unobserved, so they are not sciences (yet).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The BB models don’t even say anything about there being “before the BB” or of “pre-existing BB”.

The BB models only say that the “expansion” began with the Planck Epoch, with the 2 later models including the “cosmic inflation” (exponential expansion) that occurred shortly after the Planck. The main focus on the current model, is how fundamental particles formed, followed by formation of matters and that of large structures (stars, galaxies, etc), so it is mainly about the Observable Universe.

There are other theoretical models but so far they are “theoretical” (meaning mathematical plausible, but not scientifically probable) and more speculative, as they untested and unobserved, so they are not sciences (yet).

Fair enough, let science continue its job and better its understanding.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The "Big Bang" in the "Big Bang model" isn't a creation event. It isn't even the beginning. Before the Big Bang, there was inflation. And before that, well, could have been a lot of stuff- if Roger Penrose is right, that would include an entire past-infinite series of previous universes!

Moreover, we know the Big Bang model is only a best-fit approximation, one we know is incompletely or partially incorrect as we get into higher energy regimes in the past universe, and shorter scales of space and time, our theory breaks down and we lack a good theory for what is happening prior to a certian point in the past of the universe. Beyond that, what if anything happened is an open question because we lack a theory or model to make verifiable predictions.

And while I get the desire to read Biblical creation stories into Bing Bang cosmology, its simply a round peg/square hole situation. Either one of the genesis creation accounts make for a poor cosmological model, and neither lines up well with the current science. Hate to be that guy who bursts people's bubble, but this is simply the truth: the state of contemporary cosmology doesn't support anything like either of the Genesis creation narratives.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The BB models don’t even say anything about there being “before the BB” or of “pre-existing BB”.

The BB models only say that the “expansion” began with the Planck Epoch, with the 2 later models including the “cosmic inflation” (exponential expansion) that occurred shortly after the Planck. The main focus on the current model, is how fundamental particles formed, followed by formation of matters and that of large structures (stars, galaxies, etc), so it is mainly about the Observable Universe.

There are other theoretical models but so far they are “theoretical” (meaning mathematical plausible, but not scientifically probable) and more speculative, as they untested and unobserved, so they are not sciences (yet).

inflationary models add an inflationary period that pre-dates the Big Bang expansion. And I can't think of many physicists or cosmologists who don't accept inflation- even though it has not made any confirmed predictions, it neatly solves several outstanding problems in cosmsology like the flatness and horizon problems.

Its also interesting to note that a generic feature of inflationary models is eternality. Its almost as no matter we turn we cannot escape the possibility that, unlike us finite and bounded beings, the universe itself is unbounded and infinite in different sorts of ways (past-infinite? Possibly! spatially infinite? Probably! Future-infinite? So far as we can tell!)

 

[Audie]

Thank you, I think there is still a lot of research ahead for science to understand fully the history of the universe.

True. Always will be.
Same for you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The "Big Bang" in the "Big Bang model" isn't a creation event. It isn't even the beginning. Before the Big Bang, there was inflation. [emphasis added - JS]

According to the theory of inflation, the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmologists introduced this idea in 1981 to solve several important problems in cosmology. [source; emphasis added - JS]

Hmm?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Hmm?

Ah, equivocation. In the former quote I'm referring to the Big Bang expansionary epoch. In the latter they're referring to the hypothetical Big Bang "t=0" space time singularity.

But a nice try nevertheless. Remind me, did I **** in your cereal, or what motivates this juvenile attempt to catch me out in some mistake, any mistake?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Remind me, did I **** in your cereal,

No need for concern; I just finished Torah class and about to have some hard boiled eggs.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No need for concern; I just finished Torah class and about to have some hard boiled eggs.

So you're just doing it out of... boredom? And doing so apparently quite lazily, else you'd maybe have a little more success? Again, I appreciate that you're honest about the fact that you're not a good faith poster and that I can feel free to engage, or not, for entertainment rather than substantive purposes.