Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[PruePhillip]

The temple was not destroyed by the Greeks - it was destroyed by the Babylonians and the Romans.
Maybe one day it will be built again. But if it does I don't recall any mention of it in the bible.
I suggest that the bible has been redacted after 1967, otherwise, how could have it imagined that the Jews will return 'a second time' as Isaiah claimed.
Furthermore Isaiah, amongst others, wrote the Jews will take their land back with the sword, and rebuild the ruined land. They will come out of nations that were their graves.
Jacob stated a line of kings would come from his son Judah, there would be a Hebrew kingdom under the law and it will last till the Messiah.
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and the allegiance of the nations is his.

As Daniel stated, Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed by the same "people of the prince" that will kill the Messiah - but this Messiah will not die for himself. This might have been added after the Second Century ?????

 

[Polymath257]

LOL.

This is like saying "The theory will be violated if a viable model is proposed which has an average Hubble expansion rate of less than 0".

Ok well, do some science and provide the model, then.

How about Loop Quantum Gravity?

Until then, all you have are speculative possibilities, and speculative possibilities are not evidence.

That, followed by the fact that cosmologists have been scrambling to come up with a violator models of the theory goes to show how strong the theorems implications are.

They did the same thing with the Standard Model of the big bang...which is where the Steady State and Oscillating models came from.

And, once again, the standard model is a classical theory. It is not based on a description of quantum gravity.

But *everyone* knows that some version of quantum gravity will eventually be required. And the BGV result does NOT cover such theories.

Now, if you disagree with Vilenkin, then take up with him.

You are the one in this forum promoting the ideas. If you don't understand them enough to defend them, perhaps you should leave the debate to those who do.

Second, Vilenkin said in his published work that only one condition needs to be met, and that is that the average H expansion is greater than 0...and virtually all models meet this requirement.

And once again, *virtually*. Not all. And the BGV result is semi-classical (do you know what that means), so will need to be extended to cover quantum versions of gravity.

In fact, Vilenkin ALSO said that they didn't even presuppose that gravity was described by Einsteins equations...why? Because that is how "general" the theorem is...even if the equations were modified, the theorem would still hold.

And if you read the paper, that is clear. I don't need Vilenkin to interpret the paper. Do you?

Take that up with Vilenkin.

If your above critique has the weight that you think it has, then all cosmologists would need to do is regurgitate your critique and that would be the end of it...but instead, they are kept up late at night trying to come up with cosmological models to negate the theorem, which means it goes far beyond your little critique here.

You haven't been around many scientists, have you. This type of exchange often goes on for decades.

Um, yes it does.

Read the paper.

It applies to multiverses and any pre-big bang scenarios...which is indeed included as the "universe as a whole".

Multiverses and higher dimensions are share the same physics and natural law, and are considered part of the universe as a whole.

It applies to any semi-classical situation in which geodesics describe the geometry. Yes, that would include *most* multiverse scenarios as well as others, such as infinite inflation or Anti-deSitter spacetimes.

But what is *shows* is that each individual geodesic is limited into the past (assuming the Hubble expansion condition). That is NOT the same as saying the universe/multiverse has a single beginning.

Again, read the paper closely. This is still a very important constraint on any proposed theory, but it is not as comprehensive as you seem to think.

False. Guth has been on record for saying eternal inflation models MUST have had a beginning. Vilenkin has said the same thing...and both have said so as it particularly pertains to ETERNAL INFLATION SCENARIOS.

In other words, deSitter spacetimes. Yes.

From the wikipedia article on the BGV theorem:

"Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity."

More, specifically, from Carroll's article (worth reading for those who don't understand the physics in depth", https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02231.pdf

"A theorem by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin [33] demonstrates that spacetimes with an average expansion
rate greater than zero must be geodesically incomplete in the past. This is sometimes offered as an argument
that the universe had a beginning, but that is incorrect. Trivially, the average expansion rate could be zero,
as it would be in a bouncing cosmology. More importantly, the theorem only applies to classical spacetimes,
so at most it could indicate where the classical approximation breaks down, not where the universe begins."

Yeah, and "that particular geodesic" is our particular geodesic.

Yes, *our* particular geodesic has a singlularity in the past. That is NOT the same as saying that the universe had a beginning.

As I keep stressing, the theorem applies to all known conceivable models...string theories, multiverses, all inflationary models, bouncing universes, higher dimensions, etc.

Yes, it is that powerful of a theorem.

It does NOT apply to any quantum gravity theory. As Carroll stated, the BGV theorem most likely simply shows where the classical approximation breaks down. And we *know* it will at some point.

Please, name one quantum theory of cosmology which does NOT feature linear temporal ordering...because all the ones that do fall under the theorem.

Only if the expansion rate is more than 0 on an average. That can easily break down if there are both regions of expansion and of contraction. The singularities joining such are not going to be described by the semi-classical theories.

All other ones may fall for one reason or another but either way, as mentioned before, there is no evidence supporting them anyway...so no need in speaking on things that don't exist.

Which is fine, considering the fact that the KCA or the BGV theorem makes no attempt to answer the question of "who" created the universe.

You need another subset of arguments to take you to that point, but acknowledging the fact that the universe had a beginning is the first step.

And, again, even under the BGV theorem, that is not proved. At most, it shows that no geodesic goes infinitely into the past under a classical theory. After Hawking, that isn't even surprising. But it doesn't prove there is a 'beginning' that is common to the whole universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you and I apparently disagree on what was done.



Yeah, the invention of the imaginary eternal bowling ball is about as imaginary as the cat in Schrodinger's thought experiment which involves a cat in a box.

Well, the cat experiment could actually be done. To have a bowling ball resting permanently in some gravitational filed on a bed on which there is an indentation and then ask for the cause of the indentation is going a bit far, don't you think?

In the bowling ball example, there is no cause for the indentation. There is a static equilibrium between the gravity of the ball and the pressure upwards from the bed. That equilibrium *is* the indentation.

If, instead, the ball had been placed on the bed in the past, the cause of the indentation would be the placing of the ball. That is what started the process leading to the indentation. But in your case, that never happened, so there is no cause for the indentation. It has simply always existed.

Hmm...just like the universe in an infinite regress scenario.

The eternal ball is a hypothetical meant to drive home a bigger point...a point of which you have not and cannot debunk/refute and as far as im concerned, it still stands.

And what point is that exactly? That causes and effects can be simultaneous? How is that the case when there is no cause at all?

Now, if the ball was removed, the indentation would gradually disappear. That would happen in time and would be a causal process.

Causality requires time. Time is part of the universe. So time *cannot* be caused, nor can the universe (if there is a multiverse, just replace 'universe' with 'multiverse' everywhere).

 

[Polymath257]

Now we just have to work out WHY it all happened. Nature abhors a vacuum, yes, but nature has a reason for everything it does. Even things done due to probability still have a reason - the reason being the probability itself.

And the most fundamental reasons have nothing deeper to explain them. That is what it means to be fundamental.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, like the geodesics that we find ourselves living within, which is why the theorem applies to this universe and any universe like it.

It applies to the geodesics within the universe.

Like what? These are hocus pocus scenarios that have no scientific backing whatsoever.

False. As near as we can tell, the universe is spatially flat. That would imply that it is spatially infinite.

Even though I give you props for the acronym, you are WRONG in stating that SLOT is not a fundamental law.

Have you ever taken a statistical mechanics course? if you had, you would know better. The SLOT (standard acronym, by the way) is a *statistical law*. it happens because we can accurately use the probabilities at lower levels and average them out to get reliable *macroscopic* descriptions. But we *have* noted violations in the SLOT in small systems (where statistical variations are more likely).

Again, when you see any organism decay, you are observing the SLOT in action. It never fails.

Go look up Poincare recurrence time. Poincaré recurrence theorem - Wikipedia

Any dynamical system under very broad constraints will eventually return to be close to its original state. For example, if you release a gas from a corner of a room, it will expand to fill the room. But *at some point*, that gas will collapse again to that corner of the room. The entropy, which increased originally, will eventually decrease.

The point is that SLOT is a statistical description but there will always eventually be low probability events that happen.

The universe is a closed system, and is slowly decaying and will eventually find itself in a "heat death". The energy to do work is winding down, and if it is winding down, it must have been wound up.

Under a classical system, this is correct. But from what we understand, it seems likely that when the density gets low enough, it can trigger the quantum nucleation of a new universe (or universes).

And the chance of it being wound up (find tuned) by random chance is a 1 chance in 10^10^123...which is ugly...for your side of things.

And that would depend on the probability distribution used, wouldn't it?

It is simple. You cannot traverse an infinite amount of points in order to arrive at a single point.

Sure you can. If you have an infinite amount of time to do it and there is no start to the process.

If time is infinite, then that would mean that in order to arrive at today, an infinite amount of preceding days were traversed to get here.

I'm not sure about the word 'traversed'. But, yes, there were an infinite number of previous days to today. And that is true for *every* day in the list.

So, if each day that preceded today had a natural number attached, what would be the highest number in the bunch?

Each day would have a *negative* integer associated with it. The highest so far would be the number of today. There would be no smallest integer.

So, if the number for today is 4. Then yesterday was 3, the day before that would be 2, then 1, then 0, then -1, then -2, then -3, etc.

There can be no answer to this, because there is no such thing as the "highest" number in an infinite set.

The largest *integer* (which includes both positive and negative integers) that is less than 100 is 99 even though there are infinitely many integers smaller than 99 (including all the negative ones).

Your statement that there cannot be a largest in an infinite set of (positive and negative) integers is simply false.

So there you have it.

I don't see how your conclusion follows.

And there is really no way out of it, so you can save yourself the time in trying to come up with some miraculous way to escape the inescapable.

Sorry, but I find your argument incoherent.

Again, Vilenkin said that the theorem is independent of there even being a singularity.

And the Standard Model of the big bang has a singularity, and in that model, the universe certainly began to exist.

No, it means that the universe is finite into the past in the Standard Model. That is NOT the same as 'having a beginning', which implies a time before the event.

Did I? What have I ignored or misunderstood?

That time is part of the universe.

That causality requires time and is therefore part of the universe.

That this means that the universe *cannot* be caused.

And we "know" that philosophical arguments, such as that of infinite regression, is independent of physics.

But based on very bad misunderstandings of what can happen with infinite sets and how such could impact physics.

There is no logical issue with an infinite regression.

We "know" that quantum physics can't get you things like married bachelors, or squared circles, or two-sided sticks.

Bachelors are, by definition, not married. I know of geometries where the circles (points equidistant from a center) are squares (four sided figures with equal sides and right angles). I can easily give you a two-sided stick.


But quantum mechanics *can* lead to particles being in two places at one time. it *can* lead a breakdown of causality. And it *does* lead to a number of facts about the universe that violate what classical philosophy would claim.

We "know" those things, too.

The ones that are true by definition we know because they are simply our conventions.

But, we do NOT know about causality by definition. That has to be investigated and tested.

We do NOT know about time by definition. That has to be investigated and tested.

The number of actual a priori truths is very limited.

Well, when you get that full theory, let me know.

Well, we have several candidates, but we need to get better technology to test them.

A single cell is more complex than a space shuttle. Yet, the space shuttle was designed, but the cell wasn't?

Correct. The cell evolved and the shuttle didn't.

Complex things can happen naturally when certain types of feedback loops exist.

But the type of complexity of the shuttle is not the type that can be produced in this way.

This is the taxi cab fallacy.

10^10^123 <---the initial fine-tuned parameters which needed to be set from very beginning of the universe beginning.

Yawn. According to Penrose. Does anyone else agree that this is the case?

How do you begin with such precision? Those low entropy conditions were placed there by an intelligent mind.

How can you jump to that conclusion? The mind itself would require something like entropy and natural laws to even function.

I understand that is hard for you to deal with, but hey...you will be aight.

I don't find it hard to deal with. I simply find it to be wrong.

This is false. The universe (or nature) cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain...and when you attempt to do so, you are arguing in a circle and thus using fallacious reasoning.

My basic position is that the universe 'just is'. I claim that there is not and cannot be an explanation for reality.

Nothing within the device can be used to explain the origins of the device as a whole.

And if that device is all there is, then there can be no explanation at all.

That is the point that you missed/ignored...and it isn't going away.

External causes are needed for anything which begins to exist...and if you think otherwise, I will leave you to your absurdities (no offense).

And what is the cause of that 'eternal cause'? What explains the existence of *that*? All you get is yet another infinite regress.

I stop the regress by simply noting that the universe cannot be caused because all causes are within the universe.

 

[PruePhillip]

And the most fundamental reasons have nothing deeper to explain them. That is what it means to be fundamental.

In other words, no reason. Can you prove that?

 

[Polymath257]

You have..

1. A universe that began to exist from nothing.

No, I have a universe that is likely to be finite into the past.

Is that the same as 'began to exist from nothing'?

2. A universe that was fine-tuned for life with mathematical/engineering precision.

That assumes a purpose that is not in evidence. The fine tuning for life may not be for life. We are likely just an accident of the conditions.

3. A reason to believe that a First Cause is absolutely, positively necessary.

Nope. At most, I can see that many uncaused causes might be likely (given quantum mechanics) but that is not the same as assuming a first cause.

Oh, and why is the first cause not subject to causality?

Between science and philosophy, you have yourself an intelligent designer.

Whao! HUGE leap from a first cause to an intelligent designer.

Even a 10^10^123 odds is far better than the odds of all the things that would be required for an intelligent designer to come together (uncaused, mind you). Oh, and what physical laws describe the activities of the mind of this designer? What version of chemistry or entropy allows for the processing of this mind?

Now of course, none of this will ever be accepted by people who are simply hell-bent on the belief that God does not exist.

Oh, it is far more than that. I find the concept of a creator God to simply be incoherent. The apologetics not withstanding, the whole notion is rather far beyond anything we can test or even model.

I understand this, so I am not at all shocked that even if the Holy Spirit was to slap you guys on the behind, you still wouldn't believe.

And I understand that theists will cling to their superstitions and try to make arguments for their beliefs. Even if all of the arguments are fallacious and easily seen to be so, they will continue.

You may even blame the slap on quantum physics, though.

QM is certainly part of how our universe works. It cannot be ignored.

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin does.

Vilenkin seems to agree that the universe had a beginning. Guth, apparently, does not. And I have not seen anything from Borde either way.

Nonsense. Since 2003 (when the theorem was published), cosmologists have proposed a few models to negate the theorem, and all have failed.

If the theorem has little support from cosmology, then cosmologists wouldn't have been on the record for proposing models to debunk the theorem.

They know/knew whats up.

Hahaha.

You really need to learn more about how science is done.

Syllogism test..

1. If it can't be put into a test tube (verified by science)...

2. Therefore, we should be skeptical of its truth value.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

Yes, if there is no way to test it empirically, then we should be skeptical of its truth value.

 

[Polymath257]

In other words, no reason. Can you prove that?

I have an argument for it that I have given a number of times.

All causality depends on time.

All time is part of the universe of spacetime.

So all causality happens within the universe.

So the universe itself cannot have a cause.

 

[PruePhillip]

I have an argument for it that I have given a number of times.

All causality depends on time.

All time is part of the universe of spacetime.

So all causality happens within the universe.

So the universe itself cannot have a cause.

I doubt this answers the question. Where did causality come from?

And, we know the universe is not infinite into the past. This was the Big Issue with Hoyle - the Big Bang as he called it disparagingly, suggests a beginning. THERE WAS A BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE.

 

[Polymath257]

I doubt this answers the question. Where did causality come from?

In other words, what is the cause of causality?

I would say that answer is clearly 'there isn't one'.

And, we know the universe is not infinite into the past.

No, we do not. See below.

This was the Big Issue with Hoyle - the Big Bang as he called it disparagingly, suggests a beginning. THERE WAS A BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE.

Standard Big bang cosmology has time go only finitely into the past. but we *know* this is not a final model because it doesn't include quantum gravity effects. And, in fact, the singularity may well be simply the condition where the classical theory breaks down and the quantum theory is required to go further.

In the versions of quantum gravity we have, there are models of both types: finite into the past and infinite into the past. So we know something interesting happened about 13.7 billion years ago. But whether that was the actual 'start' has not been determined. it may well be simply a type of phase transition. We just don't know.

The most we can be certain about at this point is that the current expansion phase had a beginning.

 

[rational experiences]

Science conscious living man says it's exact.

Proven by my science is my machine.

A human man on earth exact.

He removes mass energy into no past.

He copied the sun. He consumed accesses energy by form and terms energy. IT is applied his want until most of its destroyed.

So humans themed his practice science plus machine was the destroyer.

He is human he is living. He makes all choices now as he lives. Everything he says is about now.

So he says two pre living humans...as a human scientist. Is science exact.

Had human sex.

I came from microbial bodies...sperm ovary. Exact science by exact human man of science. Story told exactly.

That same man builds a machine. He created.

Normally it's a human baby created life in natural law. Human consciousness life body. Natural law.

Instead it's a machine. He sees it. Knows it isn't human history. Looks at machine and is advised no human.

Correct advice machine presence is no human.

Is exactly advised.

So using the non human status already as he lives. The machine body. He atmospheric experiments.

In law no machine existed on earth. Biology did however.

So as he lives he is one hundred percent pre advised what that machine means as compared to human life. No human life. Even before he pressed the button.

So as he knows. He can't con my life. But he sure has a huge human population conned about man's science. Only on earth everything created.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because it is assuming causality when it seems very unlikely to apply.

So you think something came from nothing?

 

[rational experiences]

Science on earth first doesn't exist.

Says human healer conscious spiritual self.

It's not present.

An occult theist does magic. They cause a nothing heated space hole in mass to get power. Magic. He said was science.

 

[PruePhillip]

In other words, what is the cause of causality?

I would say that answer is clearly 'there isn't one'.


No, we do not. See below.



Standard Big bang cosmology has time go only finitely into the past. but we *know* this is not a final model because it doesn't include quantum gravity effects. And, in fact, the singularity may well be simply the condition where the classical theory breaks down and the quantum theory is required to go further.

In the versions of quantum gravity we have, there are models of both types: finite into the past and infinite into the past. So we know something interesting happened about 13.7 billion years ago. But whether that was the actual 'start' has not been determined. it may well be simply a type of phase transition. We just don't know.

The most we can be certain about at this point is that the current expansion phase had a beginning.

I am not saying 'God started it all with a Big Bang'
There could be something this 'membrane theory'
But I hold that God, gods or SOMEONE outside of the universe had to 'start' it. I say 'someone' rather than 'something' because I can't see a 'thing' imbuing everything with meaning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not saying 'God started it all with a Big Bang'
There could be something this 'membrane theory'
But I hold that God, gods or SOMEONE outside of the universe had to 'start' it. I say 'someone' rather than 'something' because I can't see a 'thing' imbuing everything with meaning.

Why demand a "Someone"? Isn't mere existence enough?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, *our* particular geodesic

Very diplomatic. I was curious as to how you were going to address this...uh...peculiar description in the post you were replying to:

Yeah, and "that particular geodesic" is our particular geodesic.

The idea of two idealized point-like particles traversing the same geodesic in spacetime without being the same particle is already somewhat radical. That any particular "curve" in a 4D ( or 3+1) space could be "our particular geodesic" staggers the imagination (had did we all manage to fit into a single point to traverse this curve together?).

 

[rational experiences]

A human just thinking says....

O earth turned into itself in space infinity. Rock.

Space Infinity owns rock. Vacuum void is infinity.

Sensible human.

A hot stone gas from melt became cold clear heavens gas. Infinity caused it too.

Infinity owns every greatest highest human thought as a subject.

Not that your thoughts are the greatest. As humans destroyed mass. Attacked burnt nature confessed. Heard voices as they burnt their brain. Sacrificed animal humans on rocks standing upon stone mass. Earth the planet.

So very kind of the satanist human scientist.

We don't need to pretend you know it all. You proved by use of maths you lied.

Maths science a destroyer was humans confession. Pretty basic wisdom for spiritual family unity. Natural life.

Nature was God supported.
As was bio life said humans. Earth the rock supported life.

Basic wisdom.

Men said I did evil. I broke gods law.

Now I must write human law in civilisation based on my learning.

Men changed God as ground base and heavens base. Greatest coldest.

Owning no analogy it was basic advice. Greatest coldest was anything by term supported in presence via those terms.

So whilst God earth had supported natural human parent sex. The theist looking back from lifes Sacrificed status said human sex was wrong and evil.

Yet parents plus natural baby life wasn't science nor anything but natural life. Weren't wrong. Lived naturally first and no argument is allowed.

The theist is as the human man was still looking back to write the bible testimony.

He said observing. Now my brother thinks he's a woman humans role play. Who is in love with his brother.
Wants sex relationships.

Assessing said earths laws are broken. Sexual natural human law broken. So the scientist who caused change was the criminal. As God did criminal actions to human mind life body. Because of man the scientist with machine. Temple science.

As it's gods two bodies above below that changed.

The human baby to adult the victim of gods changes.

That advice puts the human dominion as deity speaker on behalf of any considered scientific change.

Science all terms only said by the human.

So even if an eternal being changed its own body into separation by burning. Opening space. A human owns no identity as the eternal.

Created creation was historic burning. Cooled only isn't a humans thesis. Common sense you lived on a planet cooled.

So scientific theists are lying by story coercion. All it takes is a few members to join a group. It's termed a humans cult activity.

History...if you don't believe science I'll murder you. I'll force teach science is no different to I'll force teach religion. Criminal scientists in organised human crime.

Is a correct already notated human aware teaching.

Science invention was a trade for civilisation status only. It became employment only.

As once we never owned civilisation it's how wrong science of men is.

As just natural human memory as you live says so.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why demand a "Someone"? Isn't mere existence enough?

The existance came from non-existance. 'Something' is associated with the physical laws which hadn't been invented. 'Someone' suggests an entitiy or entities lying outside of physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The existance came from non-existance. 'Something' is associated with the physical laws which hadn't been invented. 'Someone' suggests an entitiy or entities lying outside of physics.

How? You don't get to just claim that it does. You need reason, logic, and evidence. Your response had none of those.

 

[Polymath257]

The existance came from non-existance.

No. The phrase 'came from' indicates a process through time. And that is NOT what happened. There was no time 'before'. no 'process', no 'coming from'.

'Something' is associated with the physical laws which hadn't been invented. 'Someone' suggests an entitiy or entities lying outside of physics.

And those entities would have to be subject to their own laws of behavior, which would simply be another type of physical law. And then the origin of *those* physical laws would be the question.

At some point, there has to be something that 'just is' obeying laws that 'just are'.

The universe seems like a good stopping point for me. Why go further into speculation about entities we have no evidence for?