Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

[Ben Dhyan]

BB hasn't been around that long. It may seemed to it is long, but it is not really that long at all.

Friedmann (1922) and Lemaître (1927) both brought up the expanding model, separately, but BB didn't have any real evidences to support its theory, until 1964, with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). CMBR was predicted in 1948, but the cosmic microwave wasn't discovered until 16 years later.

Yeah..we are talking relatively....dark matter has been around how long?

I am being patient.

You are the one who readily believe whatever happen to be in vogue. You remind me of a person who chases one doomsdayer believing in his so-called prophecy of inevitable end-of-the-world apocalypse...and when that prediction fail miserably, you will chase another doomsdayer and believe in another prophecy, until the latest prediction fail too.

I am willing to wait as long it need be. Unlike you, I am willing to wait for any new discovery of evidences to support any new theoretical physics,

I am more of engineer than a scientist, so I rely on the more practical side of science, science that have real application in the fields that I work in. So evidences mean everything: it will either support a falsifiable statement or prediction, or it will refute it.

To me, theories of theoretical physics may be fascinating to read and learn, but as far as science go, they are still untestable hypotheses.

On what basis do make that claim...I keep abreast of scientific developments and judge them by their merits. Naturally my intuition gives me insights as to which theories appear to have merit, and which don't. For example, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change science became in vogue in the 90s and I saw it as obvious B/S immediately...so no, I don't chase doomsday prophecies.

And pray tell me what failed prophecies/predictions, scientific or otherwise you are aware of I am guilty of following?

You say you are patient and you are willing to wait for any new discovery to support any new theoretical physics....why then not wait for the further developments along the lines of this paper's claims instead of attacking me for apparently posting new science that challenges the old (relatively) orthodox BB theory?

Who is to say that dark matter/zpe science can't be tested in the future? Be prepared for much upheaval in the years ahead for present cherished beliefs.... patience sir....

Which scientist was it who said...words to this effect...."the heresy of today will become the orthodox of tomorrow, and then be looked back upon as superstition in the future..." ?

I never said that BB was settled science. As far as BB go, there are evidences to support BB, NOW. So it is not just a "theory", it is a fact.

But I agreed that BB is far from complete, because as I mentioned in my reply to you, not everything is completely understood in the earliest stage of the Big Bang. I wrote that the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, that they can only hypothetically predict what happened between the Planck Epoch and Baryogenesis. And they certainly don't know what happened before the Big Bang, hence the "singularity".

But what you failed to understand in my previous reply, that the Big Bang model never state what happened before the Big Bang. The singularity is just one of number of hypotheses, which is really not part of the Big Bang theory. The BB only covered what happened after the Big Bang.

So really, Das' hypothesis has't really refuted anything regarding to the BB. Das is just making a lot of tooting of his own horn, supposed refuting BB that BB doesn't even talk about.

I don't understand...you say that BB is not settled science,, and then go on to say it's not just a theory, it a fact! If you say BB is a fact, then that means you believe the science is settled...yes? Make up your mind...

Look...all this talk about science unable to know what happened before the BB is just a claim. BB theory does not do research into pre-BB existence because it can't be known (like God can't be known), but papers like this that suggest an infinity, may be the first steps towards falsification of the finite universe BB theory.

Das never said his paper refuted BB theory...it's too early in the research. But the early indicators are that the cosmos is not finite, and if proven, BB belief that the universe is finite with no pre-BB existence will be refuted. Das all!

Well, I like I said before, I am willing to wait, but until that time of unveiling come, I will happily wiggle my thumbs, or get on with my life, because none of the cosmology, including BB, will change my life one or another. I am just not the sort of person who give my belief because some science article trying to make news with flashy but often hollow headlines.

Yeah...I generally agree with this....especially wrt BB theory...

 

[gnostic]

On what basis do make that claim...I keep abreast of scientific developments and judge them by their merits. Naturally my intuition gives me insights as to which theories appear to have merit, and which don't. For example, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change science became in vogue in the 90s and I saw it as obvious B/S immediately...so no, I don't chase doomsday prophecies.

And pray tell me what failed prophecies/predictions, scientific or otherwise you are aware of I am guilty of following?

You say you are patient and you are willing to wait for any new discovery to support any new theoretical physics....why then not wait for the further developments along the lines of this paper's claims instead of attacking me for apparently posting new science that challenges the old (relatively) orthodox BB theory?

Who is to say that dark matter/zpe science can't be tested in the future? Be prepared for much upheaval in the years ahead for present cherished beliefs.... patience sir....

Which scientist was it who said...words to this effect...."the heresy of today will become the orthodox of tomorrow, and then be looked back upon as superstition in the future..." ?

Ben, if you understand anything at all about science, then you should know that nothing is true until you have EVIDENCES to back up, whatever theories or hypotheses are out there.

The multiverse is false, until one of those scientists can supply EVIDENCES to support it as fact.

Anything hypothetical is considered false, until it has been repeated tested as true or you have discovered verifiable evidences to support.

Just because scientists might give possible so-and-so hypothesis or theory to the media, even in the science journals, doesn't in any way make them true, until you have the observation (observation as in "tests" or "evidences") to back it up.

Right now, you are accepting the Das' universe being infinite, thereby making BB to be false, and yet there are no evidences to support and no testings are currently possible. You are accepting Das' claim without even considering that he might be wrong. Sure, it is possible that Das, but not yet.

You have heard of falsification and scientific method before, haven't you?

Any new hypothesis formulated by a scientist is considered FALSE at the every start. In the hypothesis, there should be written down in his proposed hypothesis, his prediction.

1. If he can't test his prediction, then the hypothesis remains in the FALSE status.
2. If he does manage to test his hypothesis in the lab, but it FAIL the test, then the status of the hypothesis should remain FALSE.
   
3. If he can't find evidences, then the hypothesis remains FALSE.

Should test succeed, or should he find evidence he has been looking for, then will go through the tests again, or find new evidence, to verify if his experiment wasn't a fluke, accident or error.

You have heard of the saying that it is possible to have false reading that give positive result, haven't you? This is why experiment must be repeated, or new evidences must be found, for verification that any test has been successful.

And even you have positive and successful test results or evidences, the hypothesis is still not OFFICIALLY TRUE yet, until he submitted his hypothesis to his peer, for review, and they will try to verify your hypothesis and your results, by finding the evidences or repeated the test.

1. If the peer review can't test your prediction, then your hypothesis will remain FALSE.
2. If the peer review CAN test your prediction, BUT it fail to reproduce the positive result, repeatedly, then the hypothesis will still remain FALSE.
3. If the peer review can't find any evidence to verify your discovery, then...you guess it, the hypothesis is FALSE.

It is only through successful test results or through evidences, by the scientist who formulated the hypothesis, and through peer review, can his hypothesis be considered true.

The crowning jewel for any scientist is when his hypothesis has been successfully verified and validated, and his hypothesis, officially become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

The theory of Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, because evidences can be found in nature, and through testing in laboratories, therefore making the theory FACTUAL.

Intelligent Design is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY...in fact, it is not even a hypothesis, because it failed in FALSIFICATION department, it can't be tested. This is because of the Designer. You need evidences for Designer, not just for whatever they claimed to be "designed". How do you tested for this god-like invisible Designer?

The theory of Big Bang is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, because it can be observed that stars and galaxies are expanding and moving away from each other, and because the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that showed residual photon or energy can be detected from the very early universe.

Multiverse models, the Big Crunch, the Big Rip, Big Bounce are all interesting theoretical physics that can proven mathematically, but not so in tests or with evidences, which is why I see these theoretical physics to be untested, and untestable, theories, like any unverifiable hypothesis - FALSE.

 

[gnostic]

I don't understand...you say that BB is not settled science

BB is verifiable science, as well as established, but it is still not complete theory. There are things that scientists don't know about the BB, but they have hypothetically guess about the earliest universe.

They don't know EVERYTHING about the earliest stage of young universe. Not all of the observable universe is known. They can only hypothetically guess what happened in the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang.

They know what happened after 10 seconds, like the period of Big Bang NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, and everything after the BB nucleosynthesis, but they aren't certain of what happened during Planck epoch, or during the period of the Baryogenesis.

Nucleosynthesis stage is the time, when the universe was cool enough, to form atomic nuclei.

I hoped that I don't have to explain to you about atomic structure of atom, do I?

I can, but it will take time, to explain what atoms are made of, how the nuclei enclosed or bind protons and neutrons together.

Anyway, BB scientists have only speculate what happened before 10 seconds after BB, therefore, BB is not really complete.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben, if you understand anything at all about science, then you should know that nothing is true until you have EVIDENCES to back up, whatever theories or hypotheses are out there.

You are being silly now. Is QM vacuum/zpe infinite energy density true? Is GR zero vacuum energy true? There is evidence for both...but they can't both be true...science is always a work in progress.

The multiverse is false, until one of those scientists can supply EVIDENCES to support it as fact.

Silly....you sound like the Vatican during the dark ages,,,.the truth is the Earth is flat and the idea of a round Earth is false, until the supporters can supply evidence to support as fact.

You have already admitted that the science of BB is not settled, there is no consensus among scientists on BB. Reread my comments about GR and QM wrt the vacuum energy density content...

Anything hypothetical is considered false, until it has been repeated tested as true or you have discovered verifiable evidences to support.

Did you even read the paper, Das et al are reviewing extant data in the light of new discoveries about dark matter in the context of cosmic makeup, ie matter, dark matter, and dark energy. The paper has been peer reviewed and is now being read by other scientists. If it can be rebutted, it will be...this is the way science works. Your dissing is not considered scientific and thus means nothing.

Just because scientists might give possible so-and-so hypothesis or theory to the media, even in the science journals, doesn't in any way make them true, until you have the observation (observation as in "tests" or "evidences") to back it up.

You made this same point in the last post and so I will give you the same answer...Das et al did not claim truth, they put forward a peer reviewed paper...that's the only truth...so don't create this strawman again please....

Right now, you are accepting the Das' universe being infinite, thereby making BB to be false, and yet there are no evidences to support and no testings are currently possible. You are accepting Das' claim without even considering that he might be wrong. Sure, it is possible that Das, but not yet.

Strawman again, Das is putting forward a paper that suggests this is true....I, like you, am accepting that it is possible....

You have heard of falsification and scientific method before, haven't you?

Yes, I know about falsification.

The BB theory will only have followers until it has been falsified. Imho, this day is not too distant...

The theory of Big Bang is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, because it can be observed that stars and galaxies are expanding and moving away from each other, and because the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that showed residual photon or energy can be detected from the very early universe.

An expanding universe may not be the only cause of the Hubble red shift, the vacuum zpe density medium of space may also affect the speed of light. And the CMBR is not the only radiation that is omnipresent, so is the higgs field, zpe, and dark energy....the microwave background radiation is not the whole story...and iirc, the BB maths were massaged to make the CMBR numbers work for them.

Multiverse models, the Big Crunch, the Big Rip, Big Bounce are all interesting theoretical physics that can proven mathematically, but not so in tests or with evidences, which is why I see these theoretical physics to be untested, and untestable, theories, like any unverifiable hypothesis - FALSE.

If you understand the scientific concept of falsification, it matter not what you think of emerging infinite universe models, if and when the evidence is sufficient to falsify BB, it curtains for BB theory...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

BB is verifiable science, as well as established, but it is still not complete theory. There are things that scientists don't know about the BB, but they have hypothetically guess about the earliest universe.

They don't know EVERYTHING about the earliest stage of young universe. Not all of the observable universe is known. They can only hypothetically guess what happened in the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang.

They know what happened after 10 seconds, like the period of Big Bang NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, and everything after the BB nucleosynthesis, but they aren't certain of what happened during Planck epoch, or during the period of the Baryogenesis.

Nucleosynthesis stage is the time, when the universe was cool enough, to form atomic nuclei.

I hoped that I don't have to explain to you about atomic structure of atom, do I?

I can, but it will take time, to explain what atoms are made of, how the nuclei enclosed or bind protons and neutrons together.

Anyway, BB scientists have only speculate what happened before 10 seconds after BB, therefore, BB is not really complete.

You keep repeating yourself...you accept the BB theory has holes...I and most other technically inclined person know that. Those holes may indicate the theory is flawed! For that reason, scientists are taking a fresh look at the science behind the universe..nothing wrong with that imho...

Wrt your lame question on the atom.....I spent most of my working life (over now, retired) in electronics.... radio, radar, satellite com, and satellite remote sensing...ask me anything as they are in the here and now...not according to some theory as to what the were in the past?

And please try and rebut the OP paper itself, and not keep going on and on about the BB theory?

 

[gnostic]

Silly....you sound like the Vatican during the dark ages,,,.the truth is the Earth is flat and the idea of a round Earth is false, until the supporters can supply evidence to support as fact.

I am not the one who believe in god or in superstitions, ben_q. I am not the one who believe that god created this world or the universe, so don't go around associating me to the Dark Ages or any church, past and present, who rather believe in the supernatural over nature.

I don't believe in heaven and hell, or in eternal reward or eternal punishment. I don't believe in (literal) angels or demons.

So it is ridiculous that you would link me to the Vatican, hence to the Pope and Catholic. You are the one who tried to associate god with the big bang, back in post 3:

It's a beginning....but not all atheists believe in the BB, and many religious folk believe in it. It was a Vatican astronomer who first came up with the idea and the Roman church today believe it to be true....because they think it supports Genesis 1.3....Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." = Big Bang...

First you write that it was Vatican priest who discover and believe in the BB first, and then you go around accusing me of being pro-Vatican in the Dark Ages.

If you actually know about the Big Bang, then you would know there were no Earth and Sun, or any stars for that matter in the beginning, and yet Genesis 1:1, the Earth exist before light was created. The BB model and Genesis 1 don't have the same order of when there were light and when there was Earth. The observable universe is about 13.7 billion years old, the Earth and whole solar system is only about 4.6 billion years old. There's a whole gap of around 9 billion years. So tell me, how does Genesis 1 coincide with the BB?

You are the one who is trying to mix science with religion, not me. You are the one who tried to mix supernatural with the natural, not me. So this don't give me this BS that I superstitious.

You argument is weak now, as it is then, when you started this thread, as well as similar thread to this one - Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning. It is exactly the same topic, and yet I am baffled by why you would feel the needs to start a new thread?

Is because after 10 pages of the previous thread, no one believe you then, now you start a new thread, perhaps, you could fool someone else with your pet scientist with a different article of the same topic?

 

[gnostic]

You keep repeating yourself...you accept the BB theory has holes...I and most other technically inclined person know that. Those holes may indicate the theory is flawed! For that reason, scientists are taking a fresh look at the science behind the universe..nothing wrong with that imho...

No, there is nothing wrong with taking a fresh look at the physical cosmology.

You are right, there is something not complete with BB.

And I know that there the question of GR and QM, in where they clashed, and flaws in both theories. I also know that they are attempting to reconcile both theories with a new theory with String Theory and Superstring Theory, and all their variants.

I already know all this, and I don't need your silly articles or your threads to tell me any of these.

Every BB scientists and QM scientists know about and recognise the flaws in their own respective theories, but so far, there have been no real answers so far, just a lot more complex maths and mountain-load of speculations of what-ifs. The String Theory was supposed to fix all this and be THE theory that would explain everything, but all they ended up doing is making theoretical musing, more complex, and half-dozen or more directions, and it is still untestable today.

What I am at loss, is you telling us, all this is TRUE about Das' hypothesis, when Das has not present us with anything concrete except his speculation and untestable claims.

The problem is you have already made up your mind that Das is right, when Das himself have not fix the problems of GR and QM. Did Das find the solution in String Theory?

Am I not to doubt or question Das' claims or your own?

 

[gnostic]

Who is to say that dark matter/zpe science can't be tested in the future? Be prepared for much upheaval in the years ahead for present cherished beliefs.... patience sir....

Look at all my posts here?

Did anywhere have I even mention "dark matter" or "zero-point energy"?

I have not mention either, nor have I allude to them in any way? So when did I say they can't be tested? I certainly didn't.

You are attacking at strawman, ben. I didn't say what you think or believe I have said.

Either that, or you have mistaken me for someone else. If the former, then stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Domenic]

Scientist 1 “What? The bang went poof?”

Scientist 2 “We need a new theory.”

Scientist 1 “Make one up.”

Scientist 2 “How?”

Scientist 1 “The same way we did last time. Make up words nobody knows, and confuse people.”

Scientist 2 “Yeah, that always works.”

Scientist 1 “If we don’t understand what we are talking about, the public sure as heck won’t.

Scientist 2 “ Can we name this one after my ex-wife. GASTROLLA.?”


This is John Wrong, KWPPY radio in Lostville Texas with a news flash. Scientist have discovered our universe is in a giant gas bubble in the belly of a space monster. But don’t worry folks, the scientist say they don’t believe the creature will pass gas any time soon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not the one who believe in god or in superstitions, ben_q. I am not the one who believe that god created this world or the universe, so don't go around associating me to the Dark Ages or any church, past and present, who rather believe in the supernatural over nature.

I don't believe in heaven and hell, or in eternal reward or eternal punishment. I don't believe in (literal) angels or demons.

So it is ridiculous that you would link me to the Vatican, hence to the Pope and Catholic. You are the one who tried to associate god with the big bang, back in post 3:

No, there is nothing wrong with taking a fresh look at the physical cosmology.

You are right, there is something not complete with BB.

And I know that there the question of GR and QM, in where they clashed, and flaws in both theories. I also know that they are attempting to reconcile both theories with a new theory with String Theory and Superstring Theory, and all their variants.

I already know all this, and I don't need your silly articles or your threads to tell me any of these.

Every BB scientists and QM scientists know about and recognise the flaws in their own respective theories, but so far, there have been no real answers so far, just a lot more complex maths and mountain-load of speculations of what-ifs. The String Theory was supposed to fix all this and be THE theory that would explain everything, but all they ended up doing is making theoretical musing, more complex, and half-dozen or more directions, and it is still untestable today.

What I am at loss, is you telling us, all this is TRUE about Das' hypothesis, when Das has not present us with anything concrete except his speculation and untestable claims.

The problem is you have already made up your mind that Das is right, when Das himself have not fix the problems of GR and QM. Did Das find the solution in String Theory?

Am I not to doubt or question Das' claims or your own?

If you actually know about the Big Bang, then you would know there were no Earth and Sun, or any stars for that matter in the beginning, and yet Genesis 1:1, the Earth exist before light was created. The BB model and Genesis 1 don't have the same order of when there were light and when there was Earth. The observable universe is about 13.7 billion years old, the Earth and whole solar system is only about 4.6 billion years old. There's a whole gap of around 9 billion years. So tell me, how does Genesis 1 coincide with the BB?

You are the one who is trying to mix science with religion, not me. You are the one who tried to mix supernatural with the natural, not me. So this don't give me this BS that I superstitious.

You argument is weak now, as it is then, when you started this thread, as well as similar thread to this one - Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning. It is exactly the same topic, and yet I am baffled by why you would feel the needs to start a new thread?

Is because after 10 pages of the previous thread, no one believe you then, now you start a new thread, perhaps, you could fool someone else with your pet scientist with a different article of the same topic?

Your homilies on the BB would make any clergyman proud.....exchange 'Big Bang' for 'Divine Creation' and it has all the makings of a religion...complete with dark age strategies of attacking the non-believers. Look, I do not believe in the BB because it has holes in it as you and everyone else admits...accept that and get over it for now....just show me your understanding of where you think the Cosmology from quantum potential paper is wrong?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, there is nothing wrong with taking a fresh look at the physical cosmology.

You are right, there is something not complete with BB.

And I know that there the question of GR and QM, in where they clashed, and flaws in both theories. I also know that they are attempting to reconcile both theories with a new theory with String Theory and Superstring Theory, and all their variants.

I already know all this, and I don't need your silly articles or your threads to tell me any of these.

Every BB scientists and QM scientists know about and recognise the flaws in their own respective theories, but so far, there have been no real answers so far, just a lot more complex maths and mountain-load of speculations of what-ifs. The String Theory was supposed to fix all this and be THE theory that would explain everything, but all they ended up doing is making theoretical musing, more complex, and half-dozen or more directions, and it is still untestable today.

What I am at loss, is you telling us, all this is TRUE about Das' hypothesis, when Das has not present us with anything concrete except his speculation and untestable claims.

The problem is you have already made up your mind that Das is right, when Das himself have not fix the problems of GR and QM. Did Das find the solution in String Theory?

Am I not to doubt or question Das' claims or your own?

You are welcome to doubt Das's science, but please stay on topic and try and be explicit...and please do not keep bombing this thread with incessant verbose posts on issues that I've already responded to you on a number of occasions. Be warned.!!!

 

[psychoslice]

No matter how the universe started, religion has no answer at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No matter how the universe started, religion has no answer at all.

Hmmm...there was no start to the universe, so the question is moot...imho...

 

[psychoslice]

Hmmm...there was no start to the universe, so the question is moot...imho...

How do you know that ?.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know that ?.

Because it couldn't be any other way... if there was a beginning. you can go the church religious route and end up in an endless loop about....and who made the Creator?.... or go the BB religion route where no one made the BB...it started by itself and no one can ever know how or why?

To me, it is so clear and logical that there could not have been a beginning to infinite space, that it is a no brainer...can you imagine spacial existence less than infinity? If you can then please explain how space could be limited to less than infinity?.

 

[psychoslice]

Because it couldn't be any other way... if there was a beginning. you can go the church religious route and end up in an endless loop about....and who made the Creator?.... or go the BB religion route where no one made the BB...it started by itself and no one can ever know how or why?

To me, it is so clear and logical that there could not have been a beginning to infinite space, that it is a no brainer...can you imagine spacial existence less than infinity? If you can then please explain how space could be limited to less than infinity?.

I admit that I don't know, but you seem to know everything, do you really ?.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I admit that I don't know, but you seem to know everything, do you really ?.

Haha....but seriously, consider...how could space be confined, what....build a spherical wall to keep it in? What would be on thee outside? No, space has to be infinite, and all else has had to be always existing in it as where else could it have come from?

 

[psychoslice]

Haha....but seriously, consider...how could space be confined, what....build a spherical wall to keep it in? What would be on thee outside? No, space has to be infinite, and all else has had to be always existing in it as where else could it have come from?

Well you seem to know it all, where I don't.

 

[oldbadger]

At least this will make atheists understand how God is infinite and has no beginning, interesting study.

This is also a reminder of how science is ever-changing and what we may accept as absolute truth, later turns out to be false.

Very good!
Obviously, at this time a timeless universe is just a theory, but, as you say, those who follow 'science' as a fashion and religion constantly pick up new ideas and theories and wave them high, with no memory at all of all those 'science' banners that were disproved and discarded in the past.

One of their attitudes which I enjoy most is 'It's not up for debate! The consensus of scholars says (whatever)!!

 

[oldbadger]

Haha....but seriously, consider...how could space be confined, what....build a spherical wall to keep it in? What would be on thee outside? No, space has to be infinite, and all else has had to be always existing in it as where else could it have come from?

Has to be?
Is there space between atoms?
Is there space within atoms?
Is there space between universes?
Is there space between multiverses?

There are many questions, but there are few rigid certainties, imo.