Big Bang - Still Speculation

[Ephesians]

So does the Roman Nose on the side of a cliff near where i grew up.

I'm talking about the apparent design of mathematics, DNA, the initial cosmological constants, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So does the Roman Nose on the side of a cliff near where i grew up.

I'm talking about the apparent design of mathematics, DNA, the initial cosmological constants, etc.

Okay. And...?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hmmm. 65 messages in 9ne day, then radio silence?
Was this a phlash in the phan?

 

[Tars Tarkus]

I'm disappointed, thought we had a live one.

 

[atrib]

This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.

So, let's see here... the universe should have collapsed, appears to be designed, and appears to have come out of not anything.

But no God, amirite fellas? lolol

What is a god? What are its characteristics? How does a god create universes? How can we verify that gods exist?

You don't have any answers, you are only here to peddle your the stale mythology that you were weak-minded enough to buy into. amirite fella? lolol

 

[Jarhyn]

This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.

So, let's see here... the universe should have collapsed, appears to be designed, and appears to have come out of not anything.

But no God, amirite fellas? lolol

What is a god? What are its characteristics? How does a god create universes? How can we verify that gods exist?

You don't have any answers, you are only here to peddle your the stale mythology that you were weak-minded enough to buy into. amirite fella? lolol

I mean, I've answered all those questions and then some across my participation in these threads, and in fact am "a god who created a universe".

We can verify "gods exist" just by looking in the mirror.

The problem is in holding up not just "a god, small and miserable and made of meat, only god over something smaller and made of sand", but "god, grand by comparison to us in form or dimension over so much material as exists in its context to provision our meat and sand in as number."

The former does not imply visibility or reality of the latter; rather the "this" implies all and no such circumstances that make this be as it is, though it need not be considered as being in a place.

I am not even the sole or necessary god of the universe I created.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.

 

[bilby]

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.

The biggest problem with that is that current observations suggest very strongly that the universe will never quite cease expanding; Its gravity is never going to overcome its expansion.

Several cyclical hypotheses have been proposed, of which yours is one of the simplest. A stronger contender, given the failure of the universe to have sufficient gravity to collapse itself, is that a high entropy 'heat death' state will inevitably generate arbitrarily large quantum fluctuations given all the time in the universe, and that such fluctuations can become very small universes with arbitrarily low starting entropy - which is exactly the pre-inflationary state we deduce for the 'beginning' of our universe.

If you are waiting for a cosmology that both "makes sense" and complies with observed reality, then you may still be waiting when this occurs.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.

The biggest problem with that is that current observations suggest very strongly that the universe will never quite cease expanding; Its gravity is never going to overcome its expansion.

Several cyclical hypotheses have been proposed, of which yours is one of the simplest. A stronger contender, given the failure of the universe to have sufficient gravity to collapse itself, is that a high entropy 'heat death' state will inevitably generate arbitrarily large quantum fluctuations given all the time in the universe, and that such fluctuations can become very small universes with arbitrarily low starting entropy - which is exactly the pre-inflationary state we deduce for the 'beginning' of our universe.

If you are waiting for a cosmology that both "makes sense" and complies with observed reality, then you may still be waiting when this occurs.

I don't get it. I understand that (a) one theory is that expansion will lead to the exhaustion of all energy and matter into infinite space. But I don't know what is meant by "quantum fluctuations" that (b) become new universes with "low starting entropy". And then saying that is the same as the (c) pre-inflationary state at the beginning of our universe.

The problem with (a) is that, we may assume that we sit precisely in the middle of eternity, with one eternity behind us and one eternity still ahead. Give that one eternity has already passed, everything should be gone by now. But apparently it's still here. So, entropy can only be viewed as a local phenomena, and the universe as a whole would not be subject to entropy over eternity.

The problem with (b) is the conservation of energy/matter. Assuming that "something cannot come from nothing", a universe cannot come from nowhere. So, how does a "quantum fluctuation" become a new universe? What is it that is "fluctuating"?

The problem with (c) is that, if any energy/matter is lost, then each new universe would be getting smaller and smaller. And, again, given eternity, it should be gone by now.

 

[steve_bank]

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.

The unverse is a ping pong game for gods?

 

[steve_bank]

Laws Of Thermodynamics apply to a system with a boundary with internal processes, mass-energy in, mass-energy out. In an infiniteuniverse or even a bounded universe with a boundary across which nothing passes LOT would not not apply. The unverse in tot coud be a per[eyuasl motion machine.

Use of the word universe is contextual. A cosmology book I read used Universe for all that exists known and unknown, and universe for that which we can detect.

Science, religion, and philosophy converge on cosmology. None of the ideas can be proven. Is mathematical speculation on orgins of the universe philosophy or science? I'd call it more philosophy.

My view, if there i a universe with no causal connection to ours it is irrelevant. If something in our universe creates another 'universe' then there is causality and tr is all one Universe, capital U.

Back in the 0s when I took an astronomy class one of the big questions was the mass of the universe. Depending on mass the universe is steady sttate, one shot and forever expanding, one shot and then collapse, ot oscillating out and back. Or something like that.

I read that given values of parameters in relativity we could be in a black hole of sorts.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.

The unverse is a ping pong game for gods?

The gods are pretty old by now, so it's probably Pickle Ball.

 

[DBT]

The cyclic/oscillating model makes logical sense, but unfortunately the evidence appears to go against it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem with (a) is that, we may assume that we sit precisely in the middle of eternity, with one eternity behind us and one eternity still ahead. Give that one eternity has already passed,

Never did understand the idea that 'eternity has passed.'
Sounds a lot like 'and after i counted all the numbers, i then...'

 

[atrib]

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.

The biggest problem with that is that current observations suggest very strongly that the universe will never quite cease expanding; Its gravity is never going to overcome its expansion.

Several cyclical hypotheses have been proposed, of which yours is one of the simplest. A stronger contender, given the failure of the universe to have sufficient gravity to collapse itself, is that a high entropy 'heat death' state will inevitably generate arbitrarily large quantum fluctuations given all the time in the universe, and that such fluctuations can become very small universes with arbitrarily low starting entropy - which is exactly the pre-inflationary state we deduce for the 'beginning' of our universe.

If you are waiting for a cosmology that both "makes sense" and complies with observed reality, then you may still be waiting when this occurs.

I don't get it. I understand that (a) one theory is that expansion will lead to the exhaustion of all energy and matter gradients into infinite space. But I don't know what is meant by "quantum fluctuations" that (b) become new universes with "low starting entropy". And then saying that is the same as the (c) pre-inflationary state at the beginning of our universe.

For (a), see my edit highlighted above. The matter/energy is never "exhausted", it's concentration is diluted to the point that no matter/energy gradients remain. This would imply that the universe becomes homogeneous and unchanging, which implies that time no longer exists.

The problem with (a) is that, we may assume that we sit precisely in the middle of eternity, with one eternity behind us and one eternity still ahead. Give that one eternity has already passed, everything should be gone by now. But apparently it's still here. So, entropy can only be viewed as a local phenomena, and the universe as a whole would not be subject to entropy over eternity.

As I said previously, time would cease to exist when the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy. So the cycling of the universe is not one continuous event in time, but multiple discrete events, each with their own timeline, punctuated by discontinuities where time does not exist.

The problem with (b) is the conservation of energy/matter. Assuming that "something cannot come from nothing", a universe cannot come from nowhere. So, how does a "quantum fluctuation" become a new universe? What is it that is "fluctuating"?

The net sum is zero, and has always been that way, based on my reading of Hawking's books. Even now within the Stelliferous Era, as space expands and creates new vacuum energy, this gain in vacuum energy is offset by the loss in gravitational potential as areas of matter/energy concentrations grow more distant.

The problem with (c) is that, if any energy/matter is lost, then each new universe would be getting smaller and smaller. And, again, given eternity, it should be gone by now.

What we speculate to be the "pre-inflationary state" at the beginning of the Big Bang event is similar to the state that would exist in the future when the universe has leveled all matter/energy gradients and time has ceased. There is no concept of distance at either scenario because there is no time and no way to measure distance.

By the way, this is not what I believe. I am simply stating my understanding of how the cyclic model might work based on my admittedly superficial knowledge of the topic.

 

[Elixir]

I'm disappointed, thought we had a live one.

Hey, YOU are the necrophiliac who raised this thread from the dead after seven long years.
And to what end? You got one rabid YEC banned, so there's credit for that... but what else?

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce.

Problem is, we have little assurance that anything at that scale "makes sense". I don't think we should expect it to; that expectation limits us.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

I'm disappointed, thought we had a live one.

Hey, YOU are the necrophiliac who raised this thread from the dead after seven long years.
And to what end? You got one rabid YEC banned, so there's credit for that... but what else?

The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce.

Problem is, we have little assurance that anything at that scale "makes sense". I don't think we should expect it to; that expectation limits us.

Actually I can't take credit for that. My post on January 4th was in response to the original necro post that has since been deleted.