That is different from logic without presuppositions that God exists.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Did the Universe Come to Be?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
That is different from logic without presuppositions that God exists.
The expansion of the universe from a singularity was NOT "an explosion.".
Arguing from ignorance does not justify any thing. The singularity did exist before the universe, and it was likely a part of a Quantum World by the evidence. Of course a great deal remains unknown, but that does not justify any other explanation other than a natural origin.
Yes we do, but not the only explanation, which the other one is that of a cyclic universe , which also may be associated with a singularity.
A subjective statement based on presuppositions of the existence of God.
. . . and a very huge reverbrating noise!
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
No, during my childhood NDE/OBE God had shown me that matter came from some black dense material, and that matter was used to make the physical universe. It did not come from nothing.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
God has always existed but created the physical universe within the spiritual universe/himself.
He created it in an instant wave that came from the center of his being, along with the first batch of living souls. Now I don't know if God was sharing how he felt when he created it, or it was entirely my feelings, but it felt soooo very good. Although the first souls were of one mind and so were startled at their own existence and confused until they came to terms with their existence and started to develop their own thoughts and separate from the collective.
He created it in an instant wave that came from the center of his being, along with the first batch of living souls. Now I don't know if God was sharing how he felt when he created it, or it was entirely my feelings, but it felt soooo very good. Although the first souls were of one mind and so were startled at their own existence and confused until they came to terms with their existence and started to develop their own thoughts and separate from the collective.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Did you not see the quotation marks on the word explosion ? Do you not know what these mean ?
I stated that I was using the big bang theory as a reference, and no, in that theory the existence of a singularity, or the nature of it is not known.
Your counter ideas are not accepted by most astronomers, and the place of quantum mechanics in the creation of the universe is not clearly understood, it is one hypothesis among many.
I suggest that if you are going to criticize, at least do it within the stated parameters of the post i.e. the classic big bang theory.
Well, of course I presuppose God exists, just as others presuppose He doesn't.
A closed universe, which you call a cyclic universe, does not exist.
It is beyond doubt that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, galaxies are getting further and further apart. There is not enough mass in the universe for gravity to draw them back together, which is required in a closed universe. Further dark energy, whatever that may be, is causing the increasing speed of the expansion. Unless something happens totally not known, like dark energy reversing itself, the universe will expand forever, and die. An open universe.
Ayjaydee
Active Member
What about the Baum_Frampton model of cyclic universe which seems to account for dark energy?
The big bang is a singularity. It is a point at which the field equations of general relativity breakdown because the would-be solution(s) are singular. Unlike singularities in cosmology or GR or even in field theory more generally, the big bang singularity is unique because whatever methods one uses to try to avoid catastrophes of interpretation when (as is the case) one cannot resort to typical methods and simply remove the singular point from the manifold, with the big bang we are left only with the singular "point" at which the equations break down. Also, the singularity occurs because, when "running" the clock back (so to speak) we observe spacetime "shrinking" until the universe itself is the singular point at which general relativity breaks down completely.
The big bang theory is generally accepted. It is not generally accepted that the big bang refers to something we can understand or even really speak about in terms of classical general relativity because the Einstein field equations breakdown here. Also, as whatever one wishes think here, if one believes that the universe expanded "into existence" at the moment of, or immediately after, being some infinitesimally small "point", then quantum theory MUST NECESSARILY be involved. We have no theory other than quantum theory to tell us what happens in very small regions of spacetime.
Classical big bang theory is a big question mark. It seems clear to many that the fact that the singular point Hoyle dubbed "the big bang" occurs because the universe has been expanding ever since the universe appears to have been as small as is allowed in classical general relativity and beyond. But the classical theory can't tell us what kind of processes could have been occuring or might have been occuring at such small distances.
The universe can expand infinitely and be closed. This is a topological property. Also, cyclical universes are possible in both open and closed cosmologies.
Last edited:
The existence of the singularity is supported by best present knowledge of the universe. Your religious bias and lack of knowledge of science is the problem here,
The knowledge of the cosmos and the origins of our universe and all possible universes is not limited to your biased view of the Big Bang theory. There are virtually no physicists nor cosmologists that support that there is evidence for a beginning of the cosmos that contains our universe,
The ideas I presented are supported by the scientists, and I will cite more to support my case. You failing to take into the different possibilities concerning the origins of our universe in science today.
A cyclic universe is not necessarily a closed universe on the larger scale, and it is not necessarily a closed universe. The greater cosmos of all possible universes is possibly eternal and infinite.
The cyclic universe remains a possibility. Not all physicists and cosmologist agree with your assertion:New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues – Physics World
New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues
21 Aug 2018
Hot spots: do the Planck CMB data contain evidence of a cyclical cosmology? (Courtesy: ESA and the Planck Collaboration)
Unexpected hot spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) could have been produced by black holes evaporating before the Big Bang. So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth. Other researchers, however, remain sceptical that the microwave background really does contain signs from a previous “aeon”.
According to standard cosmology, the universe underwent a very brief but exceptionally intense expansion just after the Big Bang. This period of “inflation” would have ironed out any irregularities in the structure of the early universe, leading to the very uniform cosmos that we observe around us.
However, Penrose, based at the University of Oxford , has developed a rival theory known as “conformal cyclic cosmology“ (CCC) which posits that the universe became uniform before, rather than after, the Big Bang. The idea is that the universe cycles from one aeon to the next, each time starting out infinitely small and ultra-smooth before expanding and generating clumps of matter. That matter eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation. This process restores uniformity and sets the stage for the next Big Bang.
Losing mass
CCC has met with scepticism from many cosmologists since being put forward in 2005, not least because the matching up of an infinitely big universe in one aeon with an infinitely small one in the next requires that all particles lose their mass when the universe gets very old. However, in 2010 Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia claimed that they had found evidence to support CCC in the form of rings of uniform temperature within the CMB. Those rings, the idea went, would be the signature in our aeon of spherically-emitted gravitational waves generated by colliding black holes in the previous aeon.
The pair found such rings in data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), while at the same time claiming that they saw no such pattern in (standard) simulations of the CMB that they had carried out. Other groups, however, argued that simulations did indeed contain rings – once they had been modified to take account of the distribution of hot and cold spots at various angular scales that are seen in the real CMB and which are predicted by inflationary physics.
Undeterred, Penrose has now published a different kind of evidence in support of CCC. Rather than rings of near uniform temperature, he has instead identified patches within the CMB that are much hotter than the surrounding region. The idea is that these hot spots could be due to the (mainly electromagnetic) radiation given off during the Hawking evaporation of supermassive black holes in the previous aeon.
Hawking points
Penrose says that although originally very feeble, those emissions would have been concentrated in our own aeon into spots with huge amounts of energy that he and his colleagues call Hawking points. That concentration comes about, he explains, because “the universe loses track of how big it is at the transition between aeons”. The Hawking points would then have stretched during the early universe, forming circular patches with a diameter on the sky about five times that of the Moon.
In a preprint recently uploaded to the arXiv server, Penrose and two colleagues – Daniel An of the SUNY Maritime College in the US and Krzysztof Meissner at the University of Warsaw in Poland – report scouring CMB data from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite for hot spots of various sizes and analysing how quickly the microwave temperature drops off around them compared to spots in 1000 simulated maps of the CMB. They found that in and around small spots, not a single simulated map had higher temperature gradients than the real cosmos – with the temperature variations in the latter case being about an order of magnitude higher (some 3×10-4 K) than the CMB average.
Strong backing
According to Penrose, this disparity between real and simulated data provides strong backing for CCC over inflation. “We certainly welcome attempts to explain these observations in terms of currently accepted models,” he says, “but we think this will be hard unless radically new ideas come forth”.
Some other physicists, however, remain unconvinced. James Zibin of the University of British Columbia in Canada points out that scientists have been scrutinising the CMB for years and have found no evidence for particularly hot spots (although they have identified one anomalous cold patch). He also reckons that Penrose and colleagues have failed to account for the “look elsewhere” effect, arguing that because they found the hottest spots in the real as opposed to simulated data in just 2 out of 40 tests (focusing on different sizes of spot and CMB border region each time) the chances of having been the victim of a statistical fluke drop from 1 in 1000 to as low as 1 in 50.
Last edited:
"Despite the uncertainties, what can be confidently stated is that, at a time of the order of 14,000 million years ago, the Universe was much smaller and much more congested than it is at present. This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe — that at some time in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singularity."
(italics in original)
Cont'd:
.This theory, called the Big Bang theory, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and also creating time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, “What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?”, to which you will receive the answer, “There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.” You might try again with the question, “Into what did the Universe expand?”, to which the answer is, “There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded.” (italics in original; emphasis added)
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars, & Man: The Story of the Big Bang. Imperial College Press.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The singularity is proposed to exist, mathematically it cannot be proven as the laws of physics break down in retrograde before the singularity is reached.
From a Christian view, God is not bound by time, and exists outside of time and outside the universe.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
My lack of knowledge. Anyone who disagrees with you "lacks knowledge"The existence of the singularity is supported by best present knowledge of the universe. Your religious bias and lack of knowledge of science is the problem here,
The knowledge of the cosmos and the origins of our universe and all possible universes is not limited to your biased view of the Big Bang theory. There are virtually no physicists nor cosmologists that support that there is evidence for a beginning of the cosmos that contains our universe,
The ideas I presented are supported by the scientists, and I will cite more to support my case. You failing to take into the different possibilities concerning the origins of our universe in science today.
A cyclic universe is not necessarily a closed universe on the larger scale, and it is not necessarily a closed universe. The greater cosmos of all possible universes is possibly eternal and infinite.
The cyclic universe remains a possibility. Not all physicists and cosmologist agree with your assertion:New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues – Physics World
New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues
21 Aug 2018
Hot spots: do the Planck CMB data contain evidence of a cyclical cosmology? (Courtesy: ESA and the Planck Collaboration)
Unexpected hot spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) could have been produced by black holes evaporating before the Big Bang. So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth. Other researchers, however, remain sceptical that the microwave background really does contain signs from a previous “aeon”.
According to standard cosmology, the universe underwent a very brief but exceptionally intense expansion just after the Big Bang. This period of “inflation” would have ironed out any irregularities in the structure of the early universe, leading to the very uniform cosmos that we observe around us.
However, Penrose, based at the University of Oxford , has developed a rival theory known as “conformal cyclic cosmology“ (CCC) which posits that the universe became uniform before, rather than after, the Big Bang. The idea is that the universe cycles from one aeon to the next, each time starting out infinitely small and ultra-smooth before expanding and generating clumps of matter. That matter eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation. This process restores uniformity and sets the stage for the next Big Bang.
Losing mass
CCC has met with scepticism from many cosmologists since being put forward in 2005, not least because the matching up of an infinitely big universe in one aeon with an infinitely small one in the next requires that all particles lose their mass when the universe gets very old. However, in 2010 Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia claimed that they had found evidence to support CCC in the form of rings of uniform temperature within the CMB. Those rings, the idea went, would be the signature in our aeon of spherically-emitted gravitational waves generated by colliding black holes in the previous aeon.
The pair found such rings in data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), while at the same time claiming that they saw no such pattern in (standard) simulations of the CMB that they had carried out. Other groups, however, argued that simulations did indeed contain rings – once they had been modified to take account of the distribution of hot and cold spots at various angular scales that are seen in the real CMB and which are predicted by inflationary physics.
Undeterred, Penrose has now published a different kind of evidence in support of CCC. Rather than rings of near uniform temperature, he has instead identified patches within the CMB that are much hotter than the surrounding region. The idea is that these hot spots could be due to the (mainly electromagnetic) radiation given off during the Hawking evaporation of supermassive black holes in the previous aeon.
Hawking points
Penrose says that although originally very feeble, those emissions would have been concentrated in our own aeon into spots with huge amounts of energy that he and his colleagues call Hawking points. That concentration comes about, he explains, because “the universe loses track of how big it is at the transition between aeons”. The Hawking points would then have stretched during the early universe, forming circular patches with a diameter on the sky about five times that of the Moon.
In a preprint recently uploaded to the arXiv server, Penrose and two colleagues – Daniel An of the SUNY Maritime College in the US and Krzysztof Meissner at the University of Warsaw in Poland – report scouring CMB data from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite for hot spots of various sizes and analysing how quickly the microwave temperature drops off around them compared to spots in 1000 simulated maps of the CMB. They found that in and around small spots, not a single simulated map had higher temperature gradients than the real cosmos – with the temperature variations in the latter case being about an order of magnitude higher (some 3×10-4 K) than the CMB average.
Strong backing
According to Penrose, this disparity between real and simulated data provides strong backing for CCC over inflation. “We certainly welcome attempts to explain these observations in terms of currently accepted models,” he says, “but we think this will be hard unless radically new ideas come forth”.
Some other physicists, however, remain unconvinced. James Zibin of the University of British Columbia in Canada points out that scientists have been scrutinising the CMB for years and have found no evidence for particularly hot spots (although they have identified one anomalous cold patch). He also reckons that Penrose and colleagues have failed to account for the “look elsewhere” effect, arguing that because they found the hottest spots in the real as opposed to simulated data in just 2 out of 40 tests (focusing on different sizes of spot and CMB border region each time) the chances of having been the victim of a statistical fluke drop from 1 in 1000 to as low as 1 in 50.
There are numerous hypotheses, including this one. Your quote states that many are skeptical of this new idea.
So, you are free to select any you choose.
I specifically cited the classic big bang theory, and said so. why that bothers you, I don't know. As I stated, it is held by most astronomers.
Theoretical cosmologists and physicists may have other ideas, but the BB of the astronomers is based upon observation.
You made a big deal of quantum physics regarding the expansion of the universe. Have you developed a theory of everything where the micro world of quantum mechanics is integrated with the macro world of Newtonian physics ?
I would like to see that.
Thank you for your post, parts of it were interesting.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Please explain to me how the universe can be cyclical if it is open. Perhaps my understanding of "cyclical" is incorrect.
As I understand the alleged singularity, it was a point of infinite density/gravity coupled with infinite energy. Infinite meaning all there is.
Not the case. The several different hypothesis that evolved out of what you call the Big Bang theory I respect as possibilities based on the fact that they are based on actual science and not a religious agenda as is your selective use of the Big Bang theory that does not reflect science.. Actually as far as the science goes I do not 'disagree' with the different possibilities.
True, skepticism is part of the inspiration for further research and development of theories and hypothesis involving the origins and nature of our universe and all possible universes.
The cyclic hypothesis is nonetheless falsifiable through scientific methods as are the other hypothesis presented by competent scientists,
No, 'free to choose' without science is chaos and personal opinions based on agendas which are not science. At present there are a limited number of hypothesis that have been proposed that are potentially falsifiable. I personally do not disagree with any, because it represents science in progress.
First, the Big Bang Theory is not one 'classical' hypothesis for origins it represents a diversity of hypothesis based on the observed expansion of the universe, Quantum Mechanics, and the cyclic hypothesis is one. Second physicists, cosmologists and astronomers are of the same profession, and most astronomers are physicists and cosmologists. ALL are based on the same observations.
Actually I have done nothing of the sort, because neither of us are qualified, but yes the scientist have falsified the relationship of the foundation of Quantum MEchanics as the basis
Do your homework and if you want a basis for your opinions get an education in physics and cosmology very heavy in math.
You have not responded to the science. Still waiting for you to respond to the actual science involved here. Need references.
Again, astronomers, physicists and cosmologist HAVE NOT proposed a falsifiable hypothesis that could determine whether out physical existence is infinite or eternal, or finite and temporal. The only thing that has presently been falsified is time/space only exists in our universe and all possible universes beginning with the expansion of our universe. It has been falsified that the foundation of all this is Quantum Mechanics.
Last edited:
It is possibility 'cyclic' in an open multiverse, and this does not mean that the any possible universe is isolated form other universes.
This a simplistic selective statement that does not reflect what science considers a singularity, and the scientific basis for the singularity. Most of the hypothesis related to the Big Bang theory are dependent on the singularity.