• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I asked you to give me evidence of your claim that BBT says something came from nothing.
BBT never said that. At the moment, the situation is just like that of God - 'Where did God arise from?'
If you want a personal opinion, then there is no way to escape the problem of existence except through the Ex-nihilo theory. And it is mathematically possible.

"The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the amount of energy in the universe minus the amount of gravity is exactly zero. In this kind of universe, matter could be created from nothing through a vacuum fluctuation, assuming such a zero-energy universe already is nothing.[6] Such a universe would need to be flat, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error.[7]
Quantum mechanics proposes that pairs of virtual particles are being created from quantum fluctuations in this "empty" space all the time. If these pairs do not mutually annihilate right away, they could be detected as real particles, for example if one falls into a black hole and its opposite is emitted as Hawking radiation.
Alexander Vilenkin defines "nothing" as "a state with no classical space time."[13]"
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Well fancy that.

I said that the BBT model would not last, and it is really quite early days into the JWST science.
Calls into question Masses, Dark Energy, Dark Matter. Understanding could be fundamentally wrong.

[2208.01611] Stress Testing $Λ$CDM with High-redshift Galaxy Candidates

James Webb telescope findings could mean our understanding of the Big Bang is fundamentally wrong

Without getting too far into it – as it’s really complicated – the basic idea seems to be that some of the galaxies, spotted through the huge NASA telescope, are a lot more mature than they were previously thought to be - given where they are in the universe.

Mike Boylan-Kolchin, from the University of Texas at Austin, who is also the author of the new paper about the galaxies, said: “If the masses are right, then we are in uncharted territory,

“We’ll require something very new about galaxy formation or a modification to cosmology. One of the most extreme possibilities is that the universe was expanding faster shortly after the Big Bang than we predict, which might require new forces and particles.”
Now we’re about to get a bit more complex here.

So, Boylan-Kolchin’s paper suggests that the data from the James Webb telescope creates a big problem for our current understanding, because it calls into question the dark energy and cold dark matter paradigm, which is the guiding force behind our cosmology.

https://www.unilad.com/news/james-webb-nasa-space-telescope-galaxies-299274-20230415
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Well fancy that.

I said that the BBT model would not last, and it is really quite early days into the JWST science.
Calls into question Masses, Dark Energy, Dark Matter. Understanding could be fundamentally wrong.

[2208.01611] Stress Testing $Λ$CDM with High-redshift Galaxy Candidates

James Webb telescope findings could mean our understanding of the Big Bang is fundamentally wrong

Without getting too far into it – as it’s really complicated – the basic idea seems to be that some of the galaxies, spotted through the huge NASA telescope, are a lot more mature than they were previously thought to be - given where they are in the universe.

Mike Boylan-Kolchin, from the University of Texas at Austin, who is also the author of the new paper about the galaxies, said: “If the masses are right, then we are in uncharted territory,

“We’ll require something very new about galaxy formation or a modification to cosmology. One of the most extreme possibilities is that the universe was expanding faster shortly after the Big Bang than we predict, which might require new forces and particles.”
Now we’re about to get a bit more complex here.

So, Boylan-Kolchin’s paper suggests that the data from the James Webb telescope creates a big problem for our current understanding, because it calls into question the dark energy and cold dark matter paradigm, which is the guiding force behind our cosmology.


https://www.unilad.com/news/james-webb-nasa-space-telescope-galaxies-299274-20230415
Think about it, the JWST viewed relevant Galaxies' redshift, treated as doppler, is showing that they are relatively near to the BB in time, but the BBT model says that Galaxies should not be as mature as these are for that time. However, if we treat the redshift as distance, it is consistent with the TLT SSM theory, for if the Galaxies are further away, which they are as they were not visible with HST, then they would be fully formed such as our Milky Way Galaxy, which apparently they are.

Do you understand the significance of what I'm saying?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I would like observational data for that. I know it makes sense as a form of cognition in a given brain, but I would like to have that shown as independent of a brain. So to me it is philosophical rationalism dress up as science, but the strength of science is that it requires observation.
There is a reason it is called theoretical physics.
You're correct that we lack observational data for the origin of our universe, bur we do have observational and predictive behavior for the nature of Quantum existence at the smallest scale through the science of Quantum Mechanics. Research. Projects such as the Hadron Collider provide this evidence.

What Hawking did is develop a math theorem proof that applies Quantum Mechanics to the origins of our universe, The science is good, but we do not have observational data of the actual event.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You're correct that we lack observational data for the origin of our universe, bur we do have observational and predictive behavior for the nature of Quantum existence at the smallest scale through the science of Quantum Mechanics. Research. Projects such as the Hadron Collider provide this evidence.

What Hawking did is develop a math theorem proof that applies Quantum Mechanics to the origins of our universe, The science is good, but we do not have observational data of the actual event.

Yes, it is theoretical physics and not actual physics. That is something else. One day it might become actual physics, but for now it is not.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I never knew it was called nothing, but the QV, the ZPE, the Higg's field, the Dark energy of the different theories are all viewed as being omnipresent.

As described previously the 'nothing; as described by Hawking based on his description of the origin of our universe is not no-existence.

Not necessarily omnipresent. In fact it is more likely that the Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a hypothetical part of of the nature of our universe, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are descriptive concepts of observed properties of our universe.

Again, check my previous posts that address what is the 'nothing' referred to by Hawking. It is not no-existence.

The following reference may help you understand Quantum time on the Quantum scale of our physical existence. Note: the bold gives some insight that explains that time on the quantum scale is not the continuous time/space of our universe.


Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?


www.exactlywhatistime.com


Quantum Time

Max Planck is sometimes considered the father of quantum theory In the first half of the 20th Century, a whole new theory of physics was developed, which has superseded everything we know about classical physics, and even the Theory of Relativity, which is still a classical model at heart. Quantum theory or quantum mechanicsis now recognized as the most correct and accurate model of the universe, particularly at sub-atomic scales, although for large objects classical Newtonian and relativistic physics work adequately.
If the concepts and predictions of relativity (see the section on Relativistic Time) are often considered difficult and counter-intuitive, many of the basic tenets and implications of quantum mechanics may appear absolutely bizarre and inconceivable, but they have been repeatedly proven to be true, and it is now one of the most rigorously tested physical models of all time. Time at the Quantum scale only is a way to measure the time of discrete Quantum events, and is not continuous.

Quanta​

One of the implications of quantum mechanics is that certain aspects and properties of the universe are quantized, i.e. they are composed of discrete, indivisible packets or quanta. For instance, the electrons orbiting an atom are found in specific fixed orbits and do not slide nearer or further from the nucleus as their energy levels change, but jump from one discrete quantum state to another. Even light, which we know to be a type of electromagnetic radiation which moves in waves, is also composed of quanta or particles of light called photons, so that light has aspects of both waves AND particles, and sometimes it behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaved like a particle (wave-particle duality).

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). Tests have been carried out using sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 10−15 seconds) and at that level time certainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities."
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Not necessarily omnipresent. In fact it is more likely that the Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a hypothetical part of of the nature of our universe, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are descriptive concepts of observed properties of our universe.

Again, check my previous posts that address what is the 'nothing' referred to by Hawking. It is not no-existence.
The ones I mentioned are considered omnipresent.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The ones I mentioned are considered omnipresent.
No Dark Matter and Dark energy are ONLY indirect hypothetical properties of our universe. Hawking does not mention Dark Matter and Dark Energy as properties of the proposed Quantum existence called 'nothing before the existence of our universe.

Please define QV. Np problem with Higgs, which represent a part of the Quantum existence at the smallest scale.

It would be very difficult for you to provide a reference to support your insistence that Dark Energy and Dark Matter as omnipresent, or even objectively exists.,

Reference please . . .
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that you are the one playing with words here. There was no 'before time'. The whole concept is nonsense.

You seem to be trying to bring 'non-existence' into existence. If time had a beginning, there simply was no 'before'. So time did NOT 'come into existence'. There was no 'transition' from 'non-existence' into 'existence'. There was no 'because' since there was no 'cause'.
We live in space-time, where is time is attached to space, like two people running in a three legged race. Our perception of time is not free but is intimately connected to changes we see in space, such as the movement of the second hand on a clock, or a change within a specific location in space, as the digital display changes. Before time, is just another way of saying before the three legged space-time race began. Before space-time is when time and space are not connected, and are not running the three legged race. This is a different application of time with more degrees of independence and freedom.

When time and space are disconnected, both variables can finally be themselves. Their connection to the other; three legged race of space-time, places limits on both, since both are forced to coordinate as one thing; slowing both down. Once the race is over, the bindings removed, and the two people are separated, both are now free to go their own pace and style. Both can now out do what their three legged team could do.

This open state of time, is novel, and may be hard to see at first. I like to think in terms of potential in time and potential in distance, when separated space and separated time interact with space-time. The quantum world, allows for extra slack in the bindings of the three legged race of space-time, so time and space do not have to coordinate with strict standards; uncertainty principle. Before the there legged race of space-time; BB, there are even more options than loose quantum bindings.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The ones I mentioned are considered omnipresent.
You missed the point. You are using your own version of the word "nothing". You won't even define it. Others are using different definitions. No one that does claim "the universe came from nothing" is talking about an absolute nothing. For example in the his book "A Universe From Nothing" Krauss is using a definition of "No mass and no energy". The universe appearing from that sort of nothing does not go against any of the laws of physics. It only goes against your poor understanding of the laws of physics. I do not think that he even claims that the universe had to come from no mass and no energy.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Well fancy that.

I said that the BBT model would not last, and it is really quite early days into the JWST science.
Calls into question Masses, Dark Energy, Dark Matter. Understanding could be fundamentally wrong.

[2208.01611] Stress Testing $Λ$CDM with High-redshift Galaxy Candidates

James Webb telescope findings could mean our understanding of the Big Bang is fundamentally wrong

Without getting too far into it – as it’s really complicated – the basic idea seems to be that some of the galaxies, spotted through the huge NASA telescope, are a lot more mature than they were previously thought to be - given where they are in the universe.

Mike Boylan-Kolchin, from the University of Texas at Austin, who is also the author of the new paper about the galaxies, said: “If the masses are right, then we are in uncharted territory,

“We’ll require something very new about galaxy formation or a modification to cosmology. One of the most extreme possibilities is that the universe was expanding faster shortly after the Big Bang than we predict, which might require new forces and particles.”
Now we’re about to get a bit more complex here.

So, Boylan-Kolchin’s paper suggests that the data from the James Webb telescope creates a big problem for our current understanding, because it calls into question the dark energy and cold dark matter paradigm, which is the guiding force behind our cosmology.


https://www.unilad.com/news/james-webb-nasa-space-telescope-galaxies-299274-20230415

Posted a thread on that a few months back

 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I mean that nobody on earth can know with a capital K what was there at first. Ok have a good one...
Can we know with a capital K what happened 100 years ago? No, but we can know with incredibly good confidence in some matters.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you mean there is no before? You think the universe or matter always existed?

I am saying that matter and energy have existed whenever there was time. In that sense, both have always existed. I also allow that time is finite into the past.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Nope, it is time to speak out and call a spade a spade, the BB model, regardless of the dogma wrt no "before", is an impossible event, it is trying to justify getting existence from non-existence.

You keep saying that, but it only shows you don't comprehend the theory.
 
Top