No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[JustWondering]

A recently published paper in Physics Letters shows that the universe may have always existed, see link below for article. If science ends up proving the universe always existed what effect will it have on religion? Especially those which claim their deity created the universe?

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[Faybull]

A recently published paper in Physics Letters shows that the universe may have always existed, see link below for article. If science ends up proving the universe always existed what effect will it have on religion? Especially those which claim their deity created the universe?

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

well, it is certain that there are many bangs...not sure what else this article delves into....I'll check it out after kids have their martial arts leadership class tonight...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Haven't read it, but my brain considers the term 'always', and explodes. However, it also does this when considering any sort of first cause. I suspect it's all a little beyond me.

 

[DawudTalut]

A recently published paper in Physics Letters shows that the universe may have always existed, see link below for article. If science ends up proving the universe always existed what effect will it have on religion? Especially those which claim their deity created the universe?

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Peace be on you.
Quran [59:25]
God is Creator, Maker Fashioner since ever to ever.
He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

[57:4] He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.

Who knows how many times God made new universes? God still speaks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A recently published paper in Physics Letters shows that the universe may have always existed, see link below for article. If science ends up proving the universe always existed what effect will it have on religion? Especially those which claim their deity created the universe?

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

It's like deja vu all over again: Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Well, at least this means I get to quote my responses instead of doing additional work, so there's a plus:
1st one: I don't get it. All they did was substitute one singularity for another. Actually, they didn't even do that. Their new equation is an approximation of the new function they introduced "near the fixed point, the region which contributes the most to the integral, and obtain..." another singularity. They changed the lower limit of integration and the function integrated, but the result is still infinity (just like in the standard model). They've essentially decided that infinite density should be solved by integrating over a function of the Hubble parameter starting at H1 rather than H-nought and obtaining another singularity but one in which T no longer has any equation, or from

(standard model)
to

Part of another one:
Cosmology, particle physics, and theoretical physics (not that these are actually necessarily separate, and indeed much of particle physics is QFTs) are all largely based upon extensions of quantum mechanics (field theories, particularly those which are relativistic) on the one hand and general relativity on the other. The problem first is that quantum physics is incompatible with general relativity, but the more relevant problem is that the method used to obtain quantum field theories (QED, relativistic quantum mechanics, etc.) was mathematical.

Quantum mechanics is two things (unless one accepts the standard interpretation, in which case it is only the first thing). On the one hand, it is merely a procedural tool with a statistical structure that allows us to connect systems we prepare to experimental outcomes. Quantum systems exist only as abstract mathematical entities in an abstract (usually infinite-dimensional) complex space called "Hilbert space".

On the other hand, quantum mechanics describes the nature of the subatomic (and in special cases atomic, even molecular) world. But we don't know how, because the representation of quantum systems in QM doesn't represent any actual physical system- ever. Nor do we ever observe any properties of what we call systems in quantum mechanics, and the theory itself makes this impossible. "Observables" in QM aren't like their classical counterparts, because in classical physics we don't really even need the concept of an "observable". If I am interested in measuring the momentum of an arrow or the temperature of the turkey I'm cooking, the values of the measurements are the things I am measuring (i.e., when I say that the temperature of something is x degrees, that x represents the temperature itself).

In quantum mechanics, "observables" are functions (more math). They are not derived from measurement but are rather applied to the mathematical quantum system. To give a simple analogy, imagine a quantum state as the variable "x". An observable is like a function f(x)= 2x, i.e., it "acts on" the variable x and returns something else (that function is nothing like the kind of functions observables are; but it is considerably easier than explaining Hermitian matrices). This is sort of like measuring the speed of a car by determining how fast it is going, and then instead of saying that's the speed you have a "speed function" that takes how fast the speed of the car is gives you some information about possible speeds it might have traveled at over distances it didn't traverse and in a "space" that doesn't exist.

Quantum mechanics, then, presents a problem: it is very much a statistical theory, yet also a theory of the physical world. But in order to make it compatible with special relativity, we had to change the math. We didn't do more experiments or develop relativistic quantum theory by discovery. We created it by taking the math from special relativity and from quantum mechanics and making it fit. However, there are lots of ways of doing this.

And finally, so I don't make anybody wait to ask as I did in the other thread about this study, I've uploaded/attached the original study Physics Letters paper.

 

[JustWondering]

It's like deja vu all over again: Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Well, at least this means I get to quote my responses instead of doing additional work, so there's a plus:
1st one: I don't get it. All they did was substitute one singularity for another. Actually, they didn't even do that. Their new equation is an approximation of the new function they introduced "near the fixed point, the region which contributes the most to the integral, and obtain..." another singularity. They changed the lower limit of integration and the function integrated, but the result is still infinity (just like in the standard model). They've essentially decided that infinite density should be solved by integrating over a function of the Hubble parameter starting at H1 rather than H-nought and obtaining another singularity but one in which T no longer has any equation, or from

(standard model)
to

Part of another one:
Cosmology, particle physics, and theoretical physics (not that these are actually necessarily separate, and indeed much of particle physics is QFTs) are all largely based upon extensions of quantum mechanics (field theories, particularly those which are relativistic) on the one hand and general relativity on the other. The problem first is that quantum physics is incompatible with general relativity, but the more relevant problem is that the method used to obtain quantum field theories (QED, relativistic quantum mechanics, etc.) was mathematical.

Quantum mechanics is two things (unless one accepts the standard interpretation, in which case it is only the first thing). On the one hand, it is merely a procedural tool with a statistical structure that allows us to connect systems we prepare to experimental outcomes. Quantum systems exist only as abstract mathematical entities in an abstract (usually infinite-dimensional) complex space called "Hilbert space".

On the other hand, quantum mechanics describes the nature of the subatomic (and in special cases atomic, even molecular) world. But we don't know how, because the representation of quantum systems in QM doesn't represent any actual physical system- ever. Nor do we ever observe any properties of what we call systems in quantum mechanics, and the theory itself makes this impossible. "Observables" in QM aren't like their classical counterparts, because in classical physics we don't really even need the concept of an "observable". If I am interested in measuring the momentum of an arrow or the temperature of the turkey I'm cooking, the values of the measurements are the things I am measuring (i.e., when I say that the temperature of something is x degrees, that x represents the temperature itself).

In quantum mechanics, "observables" are functions (more math). They are not derived from measurement but are rather applied to the mathematical quantum system. To give a simple analogy, imagine a quantum state as the variable "x". An observable is like a function f(x)= 2x, i.e., it "acts on" the variable x and returns something else (that function is nothing like the kind of functions observables are; but it is considerably easier than explaining Hermitian matrices). This is sort of like measuring the speed of a car by determining how fast it is going, and then instead of saying that's the speed you have a "speed function" that takes how fast the speed of the car is gives you some information about possible speeds it might have traveled at over distances it didn't traverse and in a "space" that doesn't exist.

Quantum mechanics, then, presents a problem: it is very much a statistical theory, yet also a theory of the physical world. But in order to make it compatible with special relativity, we had to change the math. We didn't do more experiments or develop relativistic quantum theory by discovery. We created it by taking the math from special relativity and from quantum mechanics and making it fit. However, there are lots of ways of doing this.

And finally, so I don't make anybody wait to ask as I did in the other thread about this study, I've uploaded/attached the original study Physics Letters paper.

That's great and all but I asked 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. The math is well beyond me, I'll leave that up to the experts to sort out.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

What the heck, I might as well try to add something new rather than rehash parts of the other thread. In fact, this gives me an opportunity to focus on the important parts (sort of like a second draft).

First, this is not news (ok, it is technically but I mean it isn't something novel). There are multiple different classes of extensions, variants, and alternatives to the standard model (not to mention studies that can't be classed but merely propose some new approach or solution that isn't part of the standard model but neither is it part of any other). Within each class (and the ones that have none) are multiple different papers like this all the time, so much so that most of theoretical physics and cosmology as well as a good chunk of particle physics and quantum field theories are proposals for one mathematical formulation, solution, variant, etc., over existing ones. While the standard model has never produced predictions that were wrong and no findings have ever contradicted some component of it, there are serious problems with it (for one thing, it is bast on quantum physics and does not resolve the incompatibility between quantum physics and general relativity). Then there are issues that various physicists and mathematicians (like Penrose, whose work is almost completely in physics but who is a mathematician) who see things in the standard model they don't like. In this case, the part not liked was that the standard model tells us that the universe had a beginning. Why is this a problem? In part, it's the way that the model tells us the universe had a beginning. Simplistically, we get the big bang theory in part from empirical evidence (of course), but also by having a model of the way things work and running it backwards. As the universe is expanding (and expanding in a particular way), when we run it backwards we end up at a point at which all of physics breaks down. Shortly before that point (and I mean really shortly, was the big bang. By "all of physics breaks down" I mean that our model runs into the kind of problem you get when you try to divide by 0 (at least in physics, where this is given meaning as opposed to mathematics where it is simply undefined). You get a singularity, which simply put is when your model tells you that some parameter, property, variable, combination of these, a set of one of these, etc., "blows up" or goes to infinity. In the case of the big bang, things like density "blow up" while the volume of the universe seems to become 0. However, strictly speaking that isn't the big bang (nothing's banged yet), even though it is often considered part of the big bang theory:

"As the term suggests, a Big Bang is certainly a big explosion. More precisely, a rather violent and fast production of radiation and matter particles characterized by extremely high density and temperature. The cooling produced by the expansion (according to the standard laws of thermodynamics) has “firmed up” such particles into matter lumps, that have eventually combined into the large scale structures of the Universe we observe today.We can say that these aspects of cosmological evolution are well understood and widely accepted, barring some still debated issues concerning, for instance, the problem of baryogenesis (i.e., the mechanism by which only matter particles are produced from the relics of the primordial explosion, while large lumps of antimatter seem to be completely absent today on large scales).
The term “Big Bang”, however, is often used (even in a scientific context) in a broader sense, as synonymous with the birth and origin of the Universe as a whole. In other words, this term is used also to indicate the single event from which everything (including space and time themselves) directly originated, emerging from an initial singular state, i.e., a state characterized by infinitely high values of energy, density and temperature.
This second interpretation is certainly suggestive, and even scientifically motivated within the standard cosmological model. Nonetheless, it has been challenged by recent developments in theoretical physics that took place at the end of the twentieth century."
Gasperini, M. (2008). The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory (Astronomers' Universe). Springer.

I quote this for two reasons. The first is to emphasize the notion of singularities (those infinite values) and the second is to show that a text meant for non-specialists (despite being based on university courses and lectures) from 2008 was already talking about how earlier evidence indicated that the big bang theory (and the notion that the universe "began") was challenged. How was it challenged? Mostly mathematically (as in the study). But there are two reasons why this doesn't mean physicists are just spending most of their time on calculators spinning theories into existence.
1) Singularities, in general, are to be avoided. The indicate your model is wrong. Of course, it's often hard to tell because things we thought were impossible before quantum mechanics have turned out to be intrinsic properties of the universe, but singularities are at least to be viewed with suspicion.
2) The standard model isn't a 'theory of everything" nor is it a "grand unified theory". Unfortunately, the nature of the phenomena we are investigating is "tricky" (to say the least) and modern physics involves a lot of mathematics in which we are not sure how the math corresponds to reality. So we can't test a lot of the things we would like, we've had successes by constructing theories mathematically by melding e.g., QM and special relativity, and there are limits to the ways in which physicists can simply mathematically define theories into existence (not very good limits, but still limits).

This study, however, "solved" what is not a problem for many (certainly there is no empirical reason to think it is and all the theories for which it is problematic are untestable). It did so by introducing another singularity. The conclusion that the universe is eternal comes from fiddling with the equation that tells us how hold the universe and produce a new equation that "blows up" to infinity. This particular equation involves an integral (the elongated S shaped symbol with Hp at the top and H1 at the bottom; simplistically, it means adding together an infinite number of things, such as units of time) with end points that refer to the current age of the universe and the function which (when integrated) tells us the age of the universe. By changing the end the lower limit of integration and introducing a new function, their integral "diverges". Any integral that diverges is said to go to infinity. Basically, their model of the eternal universe comes from changing what "blows up" to infinity and then interpreting this as a solution, and in particular interpreting the divergence as meaning the universe had no beginning.

 

[029b10]

LOL, back to the Garden where the serpent claims man is eternal therefore he cannot die.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's great and all but I asked 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. The math is well beyond me, I'll leave that up to the experts to sort out.

There is a monograph (i.e., like a peer-reviewed journal, but the size of a book) in the peer-reviewed physics monograph/ series Series on Knots & Everything by Richard L Amoroso & Elizabeth A. Rauscher. The monograph is entitled The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality, but as the authors state: "This volume could just as easily have been called ‘The Nature of the Singularity’ because that is really what it is all about or ‘Demise of the Big Bang’", and the latter is actually the part of the title of their first chapter, in which the authors clearly state that the "aim of this volume is to provide sufficient insight that Big Bang cosmology may finally be falsified." Now, why have I bothered continuing with the physics and stuffy? Because despite the academic, technical nature of this work, the authors describe their theory/model as a "theistic cosmology". They introduce God in a work that not only is about as critical of the big bang theory as one can get, but is a multiverse cosmology at that. They invoke arguments for the notion of a creator: "The development of HAM [holographic anthropic multiverse] cosmology aligns with arguments for the Anthropic Principle which states that the observed universe is designed to accommodate intelligent beings." They refer to God and even scripture, which is something one doesn't usually find in a monograph published as part of a series complete with editorial board and by a publishing company like World Scientific, let alone one which requires a fair amount of knowledge of physics & cosmology as well as upper level calculus and abstract mathematics.

In other words, I don't think it will have much of an effect. After all, the big bang theory is fairly new, and even though it is still the consensus position, sources like the one discusses simultaneously reject it absolutely while professing the kind of religious and theological positions you'd expect someone to give using the big bang as a starting point.

 

[Sees]

That's great and all but I asked 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. The math is well beyond me, I'll leave that up to the experts to sort out.

Like so many have always believed around the world

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Like so many have always believed around the world

Actually that's a great point. Even the bible has points that suggest a cyclical or eternal universe, and most "cultural cosmologies" have been static or cyclical, not teleological and not with a beginning.

 

[Buttercup]

A recently published paper in Physics Letters shows that the universe may have always existed, see link below for article. If science ends up proving the universe always existed what effect will it have on religion? Especially those which claim their deity created the universe?

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

My answer is very unscientific, but having been heavily involved in Christianity for 25 years, my educated guess is that it won't change the doctrine of Christianity at all. Seriously. There will be caveats made left and right to still include a creator in the scenario.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My answer is very unscientific, but having been heavily involved in Christianity for 25 years, my educated guess is that it won't change the doctrine of Christianity at all. Seriously. There will be caveats made left and right to still include a creator in the scenario.

Christianity has always been teleological- far more concerned with the end of time than the beginning. We've had almost 2,000 years of Christianity without a big bang theory, so I think I'd have to agree.

 

[oldbadger]

That's great and all but I asked 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. The math is well beyond me, I'll leave that up to the experts to sort out.

Most religions would just laugh out loud!
Atheists have often pointed to the Big-Bang as sure evidence that God did not create all.
Now Atheists could point to the absence of a Big-Bang to prove that God did not create all!

Twisting turning squirming much?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Firstly, what physicists say today is not just different to what they said yesterday, but will probably be different to what they will say tomorrow. Anyone who cuts their philosophical or religious coat from the latest scientifically fashionable cloth is likely to look a bit odd eventually!

The one thing physics can teach us is that the current physical universe cannot be eternal: material things wear out, entropy increases. But philosophy has persuasive arguments for it having been created and that implies eternity. If Christians were right in saying that the universe is "younger" than its creator, then that implies an irrationally arbitrary act. The solution is that the universe is eternal, but gets replaced when necessary: just what Hindus (and ancient Egyptians) have taught.

 

[JustWondering]

This study, however, "solved" what is not a problem for many (certainly there is no empirical reason to think it is and all the theories for which it is problematic are untestable). It did so by introducing another singularity. The conclusion that the universe is eternal comes from fiddling with the equation that tells us how hold the universe and produce a new equation that "blows up" to infinity. This particular equation involves an integral (the elongated S shaped symbol with Hp at the top and H1 at the bottom; simplistically, it means adding together an infinite number of things, such as units of time) with end points that refer to the current age of the universe and the function which (when integrated) tells us the age of the universe. By changing the end the lower limit of integration and introducing a new function, their integral "diverges". Any integral that diverges is said to go to infinity. Basically, their model of the eternal universe comes from changing what "blows up" to infinity and then interpreting this as a solution, and in particular interpreting the divergence as meaning the universe had no beginning.

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

 

[JustWondering]

My answer is very unscientific, but having been heavily involved in Christianity for 25 years, my educated guess is that it won't change the doctrine of Christianity at all. Seriously. There will be caveats made left and right to still include a creator in the scenario.

I agree. People will continue to believe because they want to believe.

 

[JustWondering]

Most religions would just laugh out loud!
Atheists have often pointed to the Big-Bang as sure evidence that God did not create all.
Now Atheists could point to the absence of a Big-Bang to prove that God did not create all!

I agree. Religion is an emotion based, wishful thinking based belief system that does not rely on reason, logic, and evidence. Those that claimed a cause and effect model of the universe with their god wishing it into existence will simply come up with a new nonsensical explanation for how their god is responsible for everything and laugh at the atheists who seem confused at their nonsensical behavior because they do not share their delusion.

 

[JustWondering]

Firstly, what physicists say today is not just different to what they said yesterday, but will probably be different to what they will say tomorrow. Anyone who cuts their philosophical or religious coat from the latest scientifically fashionable cloth is likely to look a bit odd eventually!

The one thing physics can teach us is that the current physical universe cannot be eternal: material things wear out, entropy increases. But philosophy has persuasive arguments for it having been created and that implies eternity. If Christians were right in saying that the universe is "younger" than its creator, then that implies an irrationally arbitrary act. The solution is that the universe is eternal, but gets replaced when necessary: just what Hindus (and ancient Egyptians) have taught.

Or it is rejuvenated through a completely natural process we haven't discovered yet.

 

[oldbadger]

I agree. Religion is an emotion based, wishful thinking based belief system that does not rely on reason, logic, and evidence. Those that claimed a cause and effect model of the universe with their god wishing it into existence will simply come up with a new nonsensical explanation for how their god is responsible for everything and laugh at the atheists who seem confused at their nonsensical behavior because they do not share their delusion.

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.
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.