No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[`mud]

And the shadow between them.
~
'mud

 

[JustWondering]

Just a second........
Science changes it's mind all the time. Science can get it wrong!
The differences of scientific opinion about the Big-Bang, the Universe, Multiverses and all show just how in doubt Science is.

The very non-scientific opinion about the nature of god/s and what it/they want show just how in doubt theology is. At least science is based on what can actually be observed and tested. When a theory or "fact" is proven wrong scientists usually except it and carry on instead of having holy wars over improvable beliefs.

As a Deist, I can say, 'Whatever it is, wherever it is, God produced it, is it, and is very very huge'.
Now, all you have to do is prove me wrong.
And you can't. So I believe that Deism is right.

As an atheist I can say your claim about your deity is completely unsubstantiated and holds as much weight as any other theists claims about gods or the supernatural.

 

[outhouse]

A recently published paper in Physics Letters shows that the universe may have always existed,

Based on faulty math. As Legion pointed out.

It doesn't have a strong backing, and I don't see this guess going anywhere. 6 months from now it will be forgotten.

 

[outhouse]

what effect you think it would have on religion IF science ever ends up proving the universe always existed in one form or the other.

None at all.

Look how little the facts of human evolution have had on the religion. Past popes have stated they follow theistic evolution. They will mold dogma like usual to keep the faith rolling.

Creation is now outlawed from most public schools in science classes, but religions remains and continue to grow.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So the current understanding of physics claims nothing can have an infinite property or is that your position?

It certainly isn't my position,. nor is it in general one in physics: my go-to example involves negative temperatures, those below absolute 0 (and while formerly a theoretical possibility it is now an empirical reality; we've created systems with a temperature below absolute 0). There is no (even theoretical) supremum for heat (no maximum temperature). Theoretically, a system can be arbitrarily hot, out to infinity (it can't actually be infinitely hot, because then it wouldn't have a temperature degree value). However, systems below absolute 0 are "hotter" than any possible "hot" temperature. That is, even though positive temperatures extend infinitely in theory, the systems we've realized empirically are "hotter" than the infinity of all possible positive temperature values.

Generally speaking, though, infinities in physics involves paradoxes when they are supposed to match particular physical values, such as a positive or negative temperature. Even though we can say that negative temperatures are infinitely "hot", we can only do so because we can express their temperature as below absolute 0 and (theoretically) with a specific temperature value. Something that is infinitely dense but has 0 volume is like saying that something that isn't anywhere has the property of something that is somewhere.

More importantly, singularities are more about mathematics than physics ("singularity theory" was a mathematical, not physical, theory). Nor is it always infinities that are singularities. In physics (and many other sciences), systems are represented using models (duh, yes, but bear with me). The models, whether they are displayed using computer graphics or a single equation on a sheet of paper, are mathematical. They also "exist" in a mathematical space. In classical physics, this is called the phase space, and there is a good reason even in classical physics for thinking about the representations of systems vs. the actual systems. Our world (as we experience it, anyway), is 3-dimensional. In a model, I might only be interested in how a single property changes over time, which means I may only require a 1-dimensional phase space. Or I may require one that has 1,000 dimensions.

Back to singularities. The phase space of a classical system (or the Hilbert space of a quantum system) describes the system (or properties of it) as it "evolves" (for simplicity, think of evolution here as how the system changes over time). Also, how a system evolves (how we might plot it in the phase space) depends on things like initial conditions. So depictions/graphs of the phase space don't just show us how the system evolved, but all possible ways it could given some range of initial conditions and our model. When we plug in particular values into a model and the computer punts (we get an error), it's because we've plugged in values that can't work. The simple example is a model that is 1/x and plugging in 0 as the initial condition. You can do it on your calculator. It won't work. Also, sometimes (and this is really annoying) you have a model and you plug in your initial conditions (the initial values) and then wait. And wait. And wait. Sometimes it's because you've introduced a singularity that involves the computer trying to reach infinity, but not always. It could be because there is no final value, or because the values around a certain point wildly fluctuate given arbitrarily small distances away from that point (when your calculator or computer graphs a function as simple as a line y=mx+b, whatever the line the every segment has uncountably infinitely many "points"; computers can't plot even countably infinite points).The mathematical/statistical software packages scientists use have complicated ways of "filling in" points in graphs of a models, but when you plug in values to your model that require infinite precision around a point, the computer program can't deal with this. Other things can happen too, but the best way to think about a singularity is in terms of a model in which you are trying to get a value or values and you can't because something is screwy. The first thing you check is whether it's the computers fault, and the next is to check your model. Often enough one of these is is the problem.

Sometimes, as with the big bang, it seems like the model is telling us something that isn't anywhere has infinite density isn't a computer problem or a problem with the model, but because we've asked the computer to tell use the state of a system in space and time (or spacetime) when space or time or spacetime didn't exist. Alternatively, if the universe existed eternally and our model is supposed to tell us the age of the universe, we're not going to get an answer (the computer will sit there counting to infinity, which takes a long time unless you are Chuck Norris, who counted to infinity twice).

 

[oldbadger]

The very non-scientific opinion about the nature of god/s and what it/they want show just how in doubt theology is.

........ which is why so many folks have 'faith'.
And since your idea of science has no idea about how all this came into being, maybe it should show a little more humility?
Real science is less loud, arrogant and conceited than the anti-religious extremist branch.

At least science is based on what can actually be observed and tested. When a theory or "fact" is proven wrong scientists usually except it and carry on instead of having holy wars over improvable beliefs.

'Science' does nothing. Human beings observe, test and discover. And many of these folks have faiths and religions........ We call these folks scientists......
You think I go on holy-wars?

As an atheist I can say your claim about your deity is completely unsubstantiated and holds as much weight as any other theists claims about gods or the supernatural.

1. I will not lay in bed tonight, worrying about your beliefs.
2. Deists aren't Theists. You don't know much about all this....

 

[JustWondering]

........ which is why so many folks have 'faith'.
And since your idea of science has no idea about how all this came into being, maybe it should show a little more humility?
Real science is less loud, arrogant and conceited than the anti-religious extremist branch.

My idea of science? Please explain to me what my idea of science is?

'Science' does nothing. Human beings observe, test and discover. And many of these folks have faiths and religions........ We call these folks scientists......
You think I go on holy-wars?

My point was that wars and violence are not provoked by the pursuit of scientific inquiry. If you can show me examples of scientists suicide bombing each other over differences of opinion over a theory or something than you've got me.

1. I will not lay in bed tonight, worrying about your beliefs.
2. Deists aren't Theists. You don't know much about all this....

Deism sounds much more reasonable than theism until you get to the part about believing in a god with nothing to support that belief. So I see little difference between theism and deism. I do not dismiss the possibility of some kind of creator but I'll require more than claims and wishful thinking to actually believe one exists.

 

[outhouse]

More importantly, singularities are more about mathematics than physics

But isn't math meaningless if the input data is not accurate?

 

[`mud]

I don't sometimes think....a lot of this math's just jumbles and mumbles,
goes in circles, but they're not really round !
There are infinitely uncounted galaxies in the Cosmos, beyond our ability to see.
And trillions of stars, aint that enough ?
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

I don't sometimes think....a lot of this math's just jumbles and mumbles,
goes in circles, but they're not really round !
There are infinitely uncounted galaxies in the Cosmos, beyond our ability to see.
And trillions of stars, aint that enough ?
~
'mud

We have a natural ability to want to explain the origins of our existence.

The "theory of everything" is important, we need to be able to fully define gravity, and fully define a singularity. At this time we cannot.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

More importantly, singularities are more about mathematics than physics ("singularity theory" was a mathematical, not physical, theory). Nor is it always infinities that are singularities..

If a physical description of visible Universal evolution is proposed from a smaller physical state then sooner or later the observer is forced back into conceiving how small it becomes.

Nobody seemingly gets the big joke insofar as zero volume/infinite density has the exact same meaning as infinite volume/zero density as neither are geometric and describe absolutely 'nothing'.

 

[outhouse]

Nobody seemingly gets the big joke insofar as zero volume/infinite density has the exact same meaning as infinite volume/zero density as neither are geometric and describe absolutely 'nothing'.

Some people cannot grasp the reason and logic because we naturally see things in a few dimensions. When ever we add another dimension it throws human thinking out the window.

BUT it still comes back to a singularity, and that is another word for we don't know. So while there are predictions, all prediction go to a point of unknown instead of the certainty you seem to posit.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Some people cannot grasp the reason and logic because we naturally see things in a few dimensions. When ever we add another dimension it throws human thinking out the window.

BUT it still comes back to a singularity, and that is another word for we don't know. So while there are predictions, all prediction go to a point of unknown instead of the certainty you seem to posit.

Ah, where are the powerful intellects now who can talk about something instead of infinite volume/zero density or its obverse description of 'nothing' ?.

Last year I made the first modification to the original arguments for the Earth's orbital motion between Venus and Mars by partitioning the outer and inner planetary retrogrades using two different perspectives. The resolution for outer planetary retrogrades are well known but rarely taught in schools -

APOD: 2001 December 20 - Jupiter and Saturn Pas de Deux

The working methods of Copernicus and Kepler didn't allow for the resolution of inner planetary retrogrades so with 21st century imaging I can show how the resolution differs.

In short, my astronomy is a world away from the voodoo and bluffing that now takes its name.

 

[oldbadger]

My idea of science? Please explain to me what my idea of science is?

Read your own posts.

My point was that wars and violence are not provoked by the pursuit of scientific inquiry. If you can show me examples of scientists suicide bombing each other over differences of opinion over a theory or something than you've got me.

Just a second.......! We Brits undertook suicidal missions during the war, with old destroyers packed full of explosives. And since your history might need buttressing, our brave sailors undertook suicide missions over 500 years ago when they sailed fire-ships (laden with gunpowder) amongst the Spanish Armada off the French coast.
Suicide missions go back a long way........... and they have not always been religiously motivated.

Knowledge (your science) is a bitter-sweet condition. It produced the VI and V2 pilot-less rocket bombs. It produces pharmaceutical meds that (often) only the wealthy can afford. It is a massive money-making machine, sometimes. It produces the most dreadful weapons. And yet it can achieve the most amazing results.

So don't hold up your science placard as any enemy of religions, because that is just another form of extremism. A new religion, if you like, with just as many false prophets hiding within.

Deism sounds much more reasonable than theism until you get to the part about believing in a god with nothing to support that belief. So I see little difference between theism and deism. I do not dismiss the possibility of some kind of creator but I'll require more than claims and wishful thinking to actually believe one exists.

Nobody is asking you to believe anything. A Deist would not mind what you believe........... there is no sell about it. Carry on......

 

[outhouse]

In short, my astronomy

Is unsupported and unsubstantiated.

Ah, where are the powerful intellects now who can talk about something instead of infinite volume/zero density or its obverse description of 'nothing' ?.

Sometimes it shows more knowledge admitting what we don't know, then making unsupported guesses

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As a Deist, I can say, 'Whatever it is, wherever it is, God produced it, is it, and is very very huge'.

But who produced God?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And since your history might need buttressing, our brave sailors undertook suicide missions over 500 years ago when they sailed fire-ships (laden with gunpowder) amongst the Spanish Armada off the French coast.

Yes, but they were jolly jack tars with missing teeth and dubious personal hygiene, not scientists.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, but they were jolly jack tars with missing teeth and dubious personal hygiene, not scientists.

Rubbish!
Those fireships were thought up by Warrant holding gunners (ballistics science there), and the missions were carried out by young 'do or die' officers, with fine complexions and good teeth. All very clean and high class !!!

 

[oldbadger]

But who produced God?

....... the reason for the existence of all....... that includes those folks who have a new religion, the one that believes that science and intelligence belong only with the atheists, and that mass crime and chaos belong only with other religions..........

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yus, us affeists har more hinterlektual, gorspel truuf, and gawd bless the Queen mum.