The big bang, something from nothing?

[gnostic]

The Big Bang cosmology, particularly the standard model, ΛCDM (Λ or lambda, stands for Dark Energy, while CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter) is still the only scientifically accepted theory.

The Big Bang theory is still the only “scientific theory”, but since a large part of the young universe, before the Recombination Epoch, and therefore before the CMBR, the earlier epochs are still unobservable, and scientists are seeking to answer some unanswered questions, BB is still work in progress scientific theory.

Maybe when they eventually launch the delayed James Webb Space Telescope, few of these unanswered questions may be answered, but until then, it is wait-and-see. Both NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are working on this mission.

All other models are very “theoretical hypotheses”, meaning they are mathematically provable speculative “draft” or “proposed” papers, BUT are not yet testable.

So, the following “proposed” alternatives (or theoretical physics) are not “scientific theory”:

• Multiverse model
• Cyclical (or Oscillating) model, otherwise known as the Big Bounce (an universe undergoing a series of Bang and Crunch, or series of expansion and contraction)
• Eternal universe model
• The Big Rip
• The Superstring theory model
• etc

These models fall under the theoretical physics category, meaning their proofs are all in the mathematical equations, but without empirical or verifiable evidences, they are merely speculations.

There are lot noises in the “multiverse” camp, but they are just noises so far.

Maybe one of these above proposals (or alternative models) will eventually replace the Big Bang, one day, but as Aragon said in the LotR, “it is not this day”.

 

[Dell]

The Big Bang cosmology, particularly the standard model, ΛCDM (Λ or lambda, stands for Dark Energy, while CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter) is still the only scientifically accepted theory.

The Big Bang theory is still the only “scientific theory”, but since a large part of the young universe, before the Recombination Epoch, and therefore before the CMBR, the earlier epochs are still unobservable, and scientists are seeking to answer some unanswered questions, BB is still work in progress scientific theory.

Maybe when they eventually launch the delayed James Webb Space Telescope, few of these unanswered questions may be answered, but until then, it is wait-and-see. Both NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are working on this mission.

All other models are very “theoretical hypotheses”, meaning they are mathematically provable speculative “draft” or “proposed” papers, BUT are not yet testable.

So, the following “proposed” alternatives (or theoretical physics) are not “scientific theory”:

• Multiverse model
• Cyclical (or Oscillating) model, otherwise known as the Big Bounce (an universe undergoing a series of Bang and Crunch, or series of expansion and contraction)
• Eternal universe model
• The Big Rip
• The Superstring theory model
• etc

These models fall under the theoretical physics category, meaning their proofs are all in the mathematical equations, but without empirical or verifiable evidences, they are merely speculations.

There are lot noises in the “multiverse” camp, but they are just noises so far.

Maybe one of these above proposals (or alternative models) will eventually replace the Big Bang, one day, but as Aragon said in the LotR, “it is not this day”.

Interesting reply, one wonders if the new gravity wave detection technology could possibly detect a possible multiverse. That would open a pandoras box for sure. I've been extremely disappointed by the JWST delays. But I guess with a piece of hardware like that you should expect delays. I cant wait, I remember how much Hubble totally blew out minds after they first got it working right.

 

[Dell]

You've never studied Relativity in school?

Are you kidding, in 1980? I joined the U.S. military out of H.S. and the only thing they thought us was to eliminate and assimulate... the general I knew wasn't too relative.. ha ha ha..

 

[metis]

There are lot noises in the “multiverse” camp, but they are just noises so far.

I think the chances of establishing the multiverse hypothesis as being a full-fledged theory are unlikely because of logistics, but what we now know about quantum mechanics and certain aspects of cosmology seems to increase the chances in cosmologist's eyes to the point whereas Leonard Susskind says they now form the majority hypothesis versus there just being a universe.

 

[gnostic]

Interesting reply, one wonders if the new gravity wave detection technology could possibly detect a possible multiverse. That would open a pandoras box for sure. I've been extremely disappointed by the JWST delays. But I guess with a piece of hardware like that you should expect delays. I cant wait, I remember how much Hubble totally blew out minds after they first got it working right.

The multiverse analysis on Planck’s gravitational waves are just interpretations of the current data and cosmic background radiation imagery.

You have to remember, science, and I am talking about real science, required verification, as in verifiable evidences, not more theoretical proofs (not more speculative numbers, constants, and certainly not more untestable mathematical equations).

To date, there are no verifiable evidences to support the interpretations that this may be the evidence of multiverse cosmology.

Gravitational waves could be relating to the multiverse, but it could be something else relating to the Big Bang that scientists haven’t understood yet.

Like I said in my first reply, there are still some unanswered questions in the earlier epochs BEFORE the Recombination Epoch and the CMBR.

Maybe the source to the gravitational waves originated from one of these earlier epochs.

The fact is, we don’t know. We don’t know if these waves relate to the BB or to the multiverse. We need more evidences and data.

All the cosmologists are doing right now, is taking a stab at and making leaps as to what these gravitational waves could be, but at this stage, there are not data to answer them.

The problem with theoretical physics in cosmology, is that are lot of rackets, with each camp tooting their horns, saying - “listen to me”, while others are saying “Don’t listen to him...listen to me”. There are lots of headlines, lots of press, and breaking news, but without the evidences, it is merely just “unfiltered noises”.

People forget that theoretical physics are just some concepts with promising maths, but science needs more than maths (more than proofs); science needs evidences.

Without the evidences, they are just draft hypotheses, still untestable, still not verifiable.

 

[gnostic]

I think the chances of establishing the multiverse hypothesis as being a full-fledged theory are unlikely because of logistics, but what we now know about quantum mechanics and certain aspects of cosmology seems to increase the chances in cosmologist's eyes to the point whereas Leonard Susskind says they now form the majority hypothesis versus there just being a universe.

May be. But it is still untestable hypothesis.

It is only a proposal to alternative, still conceptual, still speculative and still unverifiable.

The quantum mechanics may point the gravitational waves to the multiverse model, or it may be pointing to another mystery source of the BB. We don’t know yet.

Right now it is merely just interpretation. You need more data and evidence to verify which of these two are the “one” that’s probable.

I am not dismissing multiverse, metis, but I am also not convinced...YET. To me, it is still a “wait-and-see” game.

And I think you already know that, metis. I think you actually have a better understanding on cosmology than me.

 

[Polymath257]

The multiverse analysis on Planck’s gravitational waves are just interpretations of the current data and cosmic background radiation imagery.

You have to remember, science, and I am talking about real science, required verification, as in verifiable evidences, not more theoretical proofs (not more speculative numbers, constants, and certainly not more untestable mathematical equations).

To date, there are no verifiable evidences to support the interpretations that this may be the evidence of multiverse cosmology.

Gravitational waves could be relating to the multiverse, but it could be something else relating to the Big Bang that scientists haven’t understood yet.

Like I said in my first reply, there are still some unanswered questions in the earlier epochs BEFORE the Recombination Epoch and the CMBR.

Maybe the source to the gravitational waves originated from one of these earlier epochs.

The fact is, we don’t know. We don’t know if these waves relate to the BB or to the multiverse. We need more evidences and data.

All the cosmologists are doing right now, is taking a stab at and making leaps as to what these gravitational waves could be, but at this stage, there are not data to answer them.

The problem with theoretical physics in cosmology, is that are lot of rackets, with each camp tooting their horns, saying - “listen to me”, while others are saying “Don’t listen to him...listen to me”. There are lots of headlines, lots of press, and breaking news, but without the evidences, it is merely just “unfiltered noises”.

People forget that theoretical physics are just some concepts with promising maths, but science needs more than maths (more than proofs); science needs evidences.

Without the evidences, they are just draft hypotheses, still untestable, still not verifiable.

I'd push the verified epoch back to nucleogenesis, but not much farther than that. The CMBR gives a fair amount of evidence about the state of things *prior* to recombination because of the density fluctuations that existed at that point.

I rather doubt that gravitational waves are going to do much for our understanding of the early universe (as opposed to some systems like merging neutron stars). Another medium that I find fascinating is neutrino astronomy. That has the potential to push observations way back, but unfortunately, picking up low energy neutrinos seems to be rather difficult. Picking up *gravity* waves (as opposed to gravitational waves) in the CMBR would be way cool also, as would any type of non-Gaussianity.

 

[gnostic]

I'd push the verified epoch back to nucleogenesis, but not much farther than that. The CMBR gives a fair amount of evidence about the state of things *prior* to recombination because of the density fluctuations that existed at that point.

I rather doubt that gravitational waves are going to do much for our understanding of the early universe (as opposed to some systems like merging neutron stars). Another medium that I find fascinating is neutrino astronomy. That has the potential to push observations way back, but unfortunately, picking up low energy neutrinos seems to be rather difficult. Picking up *gravity* waves (as opposed to gravitational waves) in the CMBR would be way cool also, as would any type of non-Gaussianity.

My understanding of particle physics and quantum physics are still at the learning stage; I am still an amateur.

But from what I can remember, neutrinos are very short-lived and like you said, low energy. So detecting the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation will be very difficult to detect, and maybe impossible. But I don’t know enough about the engineering side to really comment on what is technological possible or impossible.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not dismissing multiverse, metis, but I am also not convinced...YET. To me, it is still a “wait-and-see” game.

I am saddened when I see this, as we already be shown that the worlds of God are so numerous, that no mind can fathom it.

I did link above to the 'Tablet of the Universe', this does contain a full explanation of creation, to which only good science will unlock as to what it is saying.

Have you read it? I hope.one day soon the value if that Tablet is noted. It is a provisional translation. If you would like that challenge, here it is;

Tablet of the Universe

It will have the answers.

Peace be with you.

 

[gnostic]

I am saddened when I see this, as we already be shown that the worlds of God are so numerous, that no mind can fathom it.

I did link above to the 'Tablet of the Universe', this does contain a full explanation of creation, to which only good science will unlock as to what it is saying.

Have you read it? I hope.one day soon the value if that Tablet is noted. It is a provisional translation. If you would like that challenge, here it is;

Tablet of the Universe

It will have the answers.

Peace be with you.

No, I haven’t read any Baha'i texts, but I am guessing that if it quote anything from the Qur’an or from the Genesis, then I am guessing that this Tablet of yours are no better than these creation myths.

And you don’t understand science.

Science is not about knowing all the answers, but seeking answers, which include formulating the explanations and predictions, followed by testing both (eg testing the explanations, predictions, and any equation).

Science is both about knowledge-gathering and evidence-gathering. Science is about testing the knowledge. Science is about explains the WHAT and HOW, not the explanation for the WHO (eg God).

The WHO is only relevant in social science, philosophies and in religions, and with religions, it is only based on belief in superstition and the supernatural.

If the Tablet of the Universe have scientific merits, why haven’t any Baha’i presented this to scientific community?

I am not a scientist; my background is in the engineering fields, but I do understand the values of science that’s behind our current knowledge of technology. And among the values, is the need to test any design or prototype, before actual construction.

You want me to accept and believe your Baha’i Tablet, just by reading it?

 

[metis]

Right now it is merely just interpretation. You need more data and evidence to verify which of these two are the “one” that’s probable.

I am not dismissing multiverse, metis, but I am also not convinced...YET. To me, it is still a “wait-and-see” game.

Just let me repeat that it is virtually unverifiable because of the logistics problem alone, so I also am not convinced. However, if I had to put odds on there just being a single universe versus a multiverse, I'm going with the latter, as are most cosmologists.

However, my guess is that we'll never know the answer.

 

[gnostic]

I'd push the verified epoch back to nucleogenesis, but not much farther than that.

I actually agree with you on this.

The earlier epoch of the Primordial Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) is closely related to the CMBR and Recombination Epoch.

George Gamow was working on the Primordial Nucleosynthesis with fellow physicist, Ralph Alpher, in 1948. Alpher was also coauthor to the CMBR with Robert Herman in 1948.

Their works were essential in understanding how matters form in the early universe, but their predictions weren’t verified and validated until 1964, with the accidental discovery of CMBR.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding of particle physics and quantum physics are still at the learning stage; I am still an amateur.

But from what I can remember, neutrinos are very short-lived and like you said, low energy. So detecting the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation will be very difficult to detect, and maybe impossible. But I don’t know enough about the engineering side to really comment on what is technological possible or impossible.

Neutrinos are stable, at least they were the last time I checked. Perhaps you are thinking of muons or pions.

 

[gnostic]

Neutrinos are stable, at least they were the last time I checked. Perhaps you are thinking of muons or pions.

Probably, perhaps.

If it is, then everyone can ignore my mistaken reply.

 

[Thief]

Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?

space is real enough

time does not exist

 

[Dell]

Just let me repeat that it is virtually unverifiable because of the logistics problem alone, so I also am not convinced. However, if I had to put odds on there just being a single universe versus a multiverse, I'm going with the latter, as are most cosmologists.

However, my guess is that we'll never know the answer.

I guess the closest we can get to the multiverse is understanding T:0 of the BB. If it was a one time complex event or a more simple event which should imply the potential of multiple events.

Also if our universe's start needed no external influence of another universe, than the idea of a multiverse may become largely irrelevant.

 

[gnostic]

space is real enough

time does not exist

Space and time are real enough.

God don’t exist.

 

[Polymath257]

My understanding of particle physics and quantum physics are still at the learning stage; I am still an amateur.

But from what I can remember, neutrinos are very short-lived and like you said, low energy. So detecting the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation will be very difficult to detect, and maybe impossible. But I don’t know enough about the engineering side to really comment on what is technological possible or impossible.

Not true. Neutrinos are stable (except for oscillations between types), but *very* hard to detect. Our current methods only detect high energy neutrinos, but we've detected neutrinos from the sun and a supernova. There is also evidence from the CMBR related to the neutrino temperature (which isn't the same as the photon temperature) and that agrees with theoretical predictions and reflects low energy neutrinos.

 

[Thief]

Space and time are real enough.

God don’t exist.

time is not a force or substance

you cannot disprove God......speaking of a non-entity

 

[gnostic]

Not true. Neutrinos are stable (except for oscillations between types), but *very* hard to detect. Our current methods only detect high energy neutrinos, but we've detected neutrinos from the sun and a supernova. There is also evidence from the CMBR related to the neutrino temperature (which isn't the same as the photon temperature) and that agrees with theoretical predictions and reflects low energy neutrinos.

Thank you.

As I said, I am still learning particle physics.