Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

So at time = 0 of the BB, what existed?

To add: Theoretically the multiverse could exist in Quantum Matrix where singularities form and spawn new universes,

I believe it is a contradiction with the belief in the uniformity and universality of the laws of nature and our physical existence that only one universe would form or exist.

 

[gnostic]

The BBT is a failure, SSM is the go.

Are you referring to the Steady-State model?

You do realize that the first 2 models have been debunked already.

The original SS model, by William Duncan MacMillan (early 1920s) was debunked by Edwin Hubble in 1929, when he discovered the redshifts of galaxies.

The more well-known model of 1948, the revised SS model, by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold & Fred Hoyle, was debunked in 1964, by Arno Penizas & Robert Wilson, with the discovery of CMBR, and the CMBR was verified many times, both terrestrial radio telescopes and space telescopes (eg COBE, WMAP & Planck).

The latest model, by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge & Jayant V. Narlikar, in 1993, called the Quasi-Steady-State (QSS). Although, not yet debunked, it is dead-in-the-water, because there were so many flaws, that no scientists at present, think the QSS model would do any better than the 1st two versions...hence SSM is another failure in-waiting.

So if you are talking about the Steady-State model, I am thinking you are dreaming a false dream...which is no better than wishful-thinking.

​

 

[Polymath257]

Time = 0 is not yet the singularity, the start of the singularity is time = 0 plus.

Wrong. In fact, t-0 is exactly the singularity.

Time = 0 represent the very moment time started to be followed then by the BB.
What existed?

Good question. Technically, only t>0 actually exists in the BB model.

 

[Polymath257]

I get it, thanks.

Based on your questions, you don't.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you for your reply, I accept it is theoretical view, but fwiw, not one I share.

Once again, it is a theoretical view supported by the evidence, which is precisely what is required in science.

Your view makes no new predictions, proposes no tests, and when interpreted in the most obvious way is contradicted by observations. And that is precisely why it is dismissed by science.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe this is a yes no proposition concerning how the science of Cosmology works beyond the objective verifiable evidence concerning our universe. His Theorem and predictive models involving 'Hawking radiation' are valid, but not yet falsified hypothesis nor theories. It is unlikely that the Hawking Theorem can ever be falsified, but only supported by future discoveries and research The problem is the lack of objective evidence of what existed before the expansion of the singularity. The 'cutting edge' of physics and cosmology today is in the realm of moving beyond the objective evidence of our universe to questions that may never be objectively answered. Also much of our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics was theoretically predictive models and hypothesis in the past and only recently falsified by contemporary science.

Hawking's singularity theorems (with Penrose) are mathematical results from general relativity. If GR breaks down (which it almost certainly will at some energy), then the results need not be valid.

Hawking's prediction of radiation emitted by a black hole is certainly based on solid GR and quantum theory, but it has not been experimentally verified. And there are few situations where it *could* be verified (microscopic black holes would be one case--maybe produced in an accelerator). As such it is speculative and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. if I had to bet, I would bet it is real, but scientifically, it is not known to occur.

When we go beyond what can be objectively answered, we go beyond science. It is speculation. It is *always* possible the theories break down and things simply don't work that way.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hawking's singularity theorems (with Penrose) are mathematical results from general relativity. If GR breaks down (which it almost certainly will at some energy), then the results need not be valid.\

IF of course applies concerning much of science particularly the cutting edge of contemporary cosmology.

Hawking's prediction of radiation emitted by a black hole is certainly based on solid GR and quantum theory, but it has not been experimentally verified. And there are few situations where it *could* be verified (microscopic black holes would be one case--maybe produced in an accelerator). As such it is speculative and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. if I had to bet, I would bet it is real, but scientifically, it is not known to occur.

When we go beyond what can be objectively answered, we go beyond science. It is speculation. It is *always* possible the theories break down and things simply don't work that way.

I believe the word speculation is misused here. We probably agree to a great extent, but I hear speculation a lot and Hawking's Theorem and Hawking radiation is not based on speculation only.

 

[Polymath257]

IF of course applies concerning much of science particularly the cutting edge of contemporary cosmology.



I believe the word speculation is misused here. We probably agree to a great extent, but I hear speculation a lot and Hawking's Theorem and Hawking radiation is not based on speculation only.

They are dependent on our current bes ideas. But the specific effects have not been verified and are thereby speculative. They are also fairly far outside of where we know the current theories apply, so caution is a good thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

No Hawking did not change his mind.. Your reference to Einstein and Hawking are meaningless, unless you actually quote him specifically and not third hand comments.

Quantum Physics is based on objective verifiable evidence by many years of research in this and the past century.

Oh? Back up your sentences with quotes also about "Quantum Physics is based on objective verifiable evidence by many years of research in this and the past century."

 

[YoursTrue]

IF of course applies concerning much of science particularly the cutting edge of contemporary cosmology.



I believe the word speculation is misused here. We probably agree to a great extent, but I hear speculation a lot and Hawking's Theorem and Hawking radiation is not based on speculation only.

It no longer matters in essence what you believe to me. Nevertheless you say Hawking's theorem etc is not based on speculation ONLY. Really? Where are you getting this from? Not ONLY speculation, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

But if it is not continuous, what exists in the gaps of the continuity of time and space?

Same as what exists in between the puzzle pieces of the fossils of placing them in the sequence of the theory of evolution? (Nothing) So does nothing exist? Ah well...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh? Back up your sentences with quotes also about "Quantum Physics is based on objective verifiable evidence by many years of research in this and the past century."

Do you not realize that computers work in the realm of quantum physics?

Quantum Physics | Solid-state Device Theory | Electronics Textbook

Read about Quantum Physics (Solid-state Device Theory) in our free Electronics Textbook

www.allaboutcircuits.com

It is not just an idea of experimental physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same as what exists in between the puzzle pieces of the fossils of placing them in the sequence of the theory of evolution? (Nothing) So does nothing exist? Ah well...

No, his question was nonsensical. The fossil record was never predicted to be complete. Even in Darwin's time they knew that for terrestrial fossils especially that fossilization was the very rare exception to the rules.

And why do you concentrate only on the fossil record? Why do you avoid all of the other evidence for the theory of evolution. Darwin did not base his work on the fossil record at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh? Back up your sentences with quotes also about "Quantum Physics is based on objective verifiable evidence by many years of research in this and the past century."

Seriously? Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most verified theory of physics ever devised. It is used to describe atoms, binding in molecules, how solids act, how light is emitted, the details of the atomic nucleus, the different known subatomic particles, etc. The list goes on and on.

Do you really need me to give a history?

History of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a bit about quantum field theories:

Quantum field theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your wording is confusing and awkward. This is not what the Hawking Theorem proposes. T=0 for our universe is the point of the beginning of expansion of the singularity.

Ok, we will go with your wording, what existed at T=0 the instant the expansion of the singularity began.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is why you should link your sources. The size of the current observable universe was once the size of a golf ball. That is not the entire universe. Do you not understand that? Many of your questions cannot be answered as asked because your understanding of what you are arguing against is wrong.

I know that you do not like it when people point out that no one believes what you claim they believe, but if yo cannot link a source properly then we can claim that.

You say that the early universe the size of a golf ball was not the entire universe, I presume you mean that there was more energy to emerge, where was this energy coming from? Iow, where did the energy of the BB universe come from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To add: Theoretically the multiverse could exist in Quantum Matrix where singularities form and spawn new universes,

I believe it is a contradiction with the belief in the uniformity and universality of the laws of nature and our physical existence that only one universe would form or exist.

So do the universes in a multiverse share the same spatial environment in the way that separate galaxies in this universe share the same universal spatial environment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say that the early universe the size of a golf ball was not the entire universe, I presume you mean that there was more energy to emerge, where was this energy coming from? Iow, where did the energy of the BB universe come from?

No, and this is why you should pay attention to people. Once again Polymath explained this to you the "size of a golf ball" would only have been the universes that we know of. The universe appears to be much larger than what we can see. Even at those extremely small distances anything further away than that golf ball sized diameter would have been two far away to affect us. The start of the Big Bang was an incredibly rapid expansion of space itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you referring to the Steady-State model?

You do realize that the first 2 models have been debunked already.

The original SS model, by William Duncan MacMillan (early 1920s) was debunked by Edwin Hubble in 1929, when he discovered the redshifts of galaxies.

The more well-known model of 1948, the revised SS model, by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold & Fred Hoyle, was debunked in 1964, by Arno Penizas & Robert Wilson, with the discovery of CMBR, and the CMBR was verified many times, both terrestrial radio telescopes and space telescopes (eg COBE, WMAP & Planck).

The latest model, by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge & Jayant V. Narlikar, in 1993, called the Quasi-Steady-State (QSS). Although, not yet debunked, it is dead-in-the-water, because there were so many flaws, that no scientists at present, think the QSS model would do any better than the 1st two versions...hence SSM is another failure in-waiting.

So if you are talking about the Steady-State model, I am thinking you are dreaming a false dream...which is no better than wishful-thinking.

​

The BBT has flaws too, and so I keep an open mind. An eternal infinite SS universe makes sense to me whereas the BB expanding universe theory does not. The JWST may be the instrument that end the BBT, we will see.

 

[We Never Know]

Wrong. In fact, t-0 is exactly the singularity.

Good question. Technically, only t>0 actually exists in the BB model.

"In fact, t-0 is exactly the singularity"

So are you......

-saying the singularity existed before the BB?
-saying the singularity just poofed into existence and began expanding?