Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[McBell]

So this is how I've always understood it...hence my sig line. It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing.

Who makes the claim "something from nothing"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A couple of problems, if the universe has been expanding "forever" (since there was no beginning, then we should have reached absolute zero by "now" at this end of forever. The there's the problem of the sound of the Big Bang, aka the cosmic microwave background radiation, and if we reverse celestial expansion, things come back to a single point/singularity.

Then there’s this admission the article:
"Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity."

If you can't pound a square peg into a round hole, you can't just shave it off and declare all those shavings to be irrelevant. That Big Bang firewall has been very frustrating to adherents of revealed religions as well as atheist scientists since it was theorize. But there is a satisfying explanation to the situation for agnostic deists (truth in reporting, such as myself). If God wanted us not to know that It existed so that we could make our own moral decisions without divine pressure, this is exactly what It would have done. Scientists like Stephen Hawking have had to back down begrudgingly from previous assertions of indications for conditions prior to the Big Bang. Others have been more gracious in admitting that a laissez-fair God can’t be ruled out...almost as begrudgingly.

We're still a long way from recognizing a coherent quantum theory, but I think the Transactional Interpretation is probably close. It's biggest problem for scientists is that it's too simple, and quantum transactions taking place backward in time is too....well, they've got to eliminate everything else first I guess. We are progressing, what with the once strongest "Many Worlds" and "Copenhagen" quantum interpretations loosing momentum, and favor.

You've covered lots of ground in your speculations there TPT, but they are all based on present scientific and religious beliefs. I personally don't think the human mind, due to design constraints, can apprehend the total unity of all existence on the one hand and to comprehend why, when, where, and how all of the apparent constituent parts and aspects have come together to form universal reality on the other. Suffice to say that material science concentrates on the latter, while religion focuses on the former. That many brilliant minded people of both tend to berate the other for their apparent shortcomings, I think each should stick to the area on which they are an authority....Jesus taught that you can not serve two masters without serving one second best!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Who makes the claim "something from nothing"?

Ok...tell me what was in existence before your believed big bang banged?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, that's easy. Backwards v forward. -∞ v +∞. (Now, is the point where the two infinite, past and future, meet. )

There's an infinite number of infinites.

There's an infinite number of odd numbers. Infinite of even numbers. Infinite of numbers divisible with 3. Infinite number of primes. And so on.

Also, thinking about relativity, every object has its own experience of time relative to the others. Every particle, every photon, all having their own little "bubble" of reality that will go on infinitely.

Word games my friend.....since there is nothing beyond absolute infinity, any apparent coexisting infinities are actually just that, apparent, and are an aspect of the one infinity. Iow, infinity is an absolute unity, and all apparent aspects of it are mere abstractions from it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are currently and still valid evidences to support the Big Bang model, which is the universe have been expanding, since about 13.8 billion years ago.

I am not saying the article is wrong, I am saying until there are conclusive evidences to support his model, then it just a mathematical model, and nothing more. So until then, I see no reason to support the claim.

Quite so gnostic,everyone knows that the standard model has a problem wrt macro gravity and micro/quantum gravity, but this is the first peer reviewed paper I've heard of that suggests a non BB eternal universe.

Imho, It is never a case of being pro or anti anything, reality is forever changing and what is apparently true one day will ultimately be looked upon as superstition some future time. It can't be any other way, it is called evolution. That's why I call hubris on anyone claiming the ultimate truth on any subject.

 

[Parsimony]

In another thread the same 'scientists' refuse to accept the external reference for the Earth turning daily even without moving on to the larger motion of the Earth moving around the Sun and how the original heliocentric astronomers judged it. Here again the empiricists made a mess of things and never fully understood how to use observations of external objects to prove the Earth's orbital motion. The next motion is the Earth's motion through the galaxy along with the rest of the solar system and how to determine that motion.

What are you talking about? It's well known these days that the Earth turns on its axis and that it orbits the Sun and that the Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy and that the Milky Way moves relative to other galaxies.

 

[outhouse]

You seem to be suggesting a combination of an eternal universe on the one hand

No, not in any sense.

Im saying material existed prior to the formation of this universe,

thus agreeing with the OP that the universe is without a beginning

No not at all.

Our universe had a beginning as space and time formed in the expansion of a super massive black hole.

and that black holes were present for BB to occur

A black hole is a singularity. A singularity started our time and space.


There could be many out, following a multiverse, or universe in a universe

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, not in any sense. Im saying material existed prior to the formation of this universe,

No not at all. Our universe had a beginning as space and time formed in the expansion of a super massive black hole.

A black hole is a singularity. A singularity started our time and space. There could be many out, following a multiverse, or universe in a universe

Ok...when and how did the material that existed prior to the formation of this universe come into existence?

And if this universe is among many others in a multiverse, when and how did this universal multiverse come into existence?

 

[outhouse]

Ok...when and how did the material that existed prior to the formation of this universe come into existence?

We don't know.

when and how did this universal multiverse come into existence?

We don't know.


What we do know is this universe formed from the expansion of a singularity over 13 billion years ago, that created our space and time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't know.

We don't know. What we do know is this universe formed from the expansion of a singularity over 13 billion years ago, that created our space and time.

Ok, while you do not know when and how that the universal universe came into being, this universe of universe had to exist before this observable universe cane into being...yes?

 

[gnostic]

Quite so gnostic,everyone knows that the standard model has a problem wrt macro gravity and micro/quantum gravity, but this is the first peer reviewed paper I've heard of that suggests a non BB eternal universe.

Imho, It is never a case of being pro or anti anything, reality is forever changing and what is apparently true one day will ultimately be looked upon as superstition some future time. It can't be any other way, it is called evolution. That's why I call hubris on anyone claiming the ultimate truth on any subject.

I don't believe in "ultimate truth", ben. I never have.

This whole "ultimate truth" only fall under the realm of a few philosophies and some religious (theistic) religions and mysticism; it (ultimate truth) is not something science.

I am not a philosopher, and I am agnostic. I actually find the ultimate truth to be absurd.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Haha...you give me mathematical equations that are meant to represent infinity as if the finger pointing at the moon is the moon.

I gave you equations from the paper you started this thread about. If you mock such notions, why create a thread based upon them?

 

[outhouse]

universe had to exist before this observable universe cane into being...yes?

No.

We cannot say until we know more about singularities in general. Possible but unknown.


I have offered up my best guesses, some parts based on facts. But still guesses none the less.

The singularity that created our universe could have origins from a dimension we know nothing about.


Again, one more time. Without a TOE our knowledge is very limited at this time. While we are not blind, we do not possess clear vision.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I gave you equations from the paper you started this thread about. If you mock such notions, why create a thread based upon them?

I am not in a position to understand the math of such equations, but I do have a mind that understands that the reality for which the concept of infinity stands, is forever on the other side. What you are dealing with in science are abstractions....and I'm not mocking that, only that there is more to it than the abstractions. The paper is using scientific language to show that the universe is eternal.....it just happens that I have always understood this, but I also understand that it can't be apprehended through abstractions. Let the battle of the ss universe and the BB'rs be fought out into the future and see how it develops...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not in a position to understand the math of such equations

Then you can't understand their physical significance, but you apparently can feel free to mock the position of the physicists in the article you linked to.

The paper is using scientific language to show that the universe is eternal

Have you read the paper?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you can't understand their physical significance, but you apparently can feel free to mock the position of the physicists in the article you linked to.

Have you read the paper?

I posted the phys.org article, I looked for, but did not find any link to the paper....if you have it, do please post it.
I am not mocking the physicists, they put forward their science to show what they understand, ie. the universe is eternal, if it can't be falsified, it will stand. But we are talking about the physical universe, and abstractions of it at that.....there is more to the whole than that. If you think mathematical equations can determine absolute reality, then I can just say it is hubris.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

We cannot say until we know more about singularities in general. Possible but unknown.

I have offered up my best guesses, some parts based on facts. But still guesses none the less.

The singularity that created our universe could have origins from a dimension we know nothing about.

Again, one more time. Without a TOE our knowledge is very limited at this time. While we are not blind, we do not possess clear vision.

You are all over the place....let me reduce it to this....you say that there was substantial existence before the BB, but don't know how and when it came into existence, but deny it is possibly a part of an eternal process.

So how do you know that these BBs all over the universal universe in cosmic time and space are a finite process that had a beginning?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So this is how I've always understood it...hence my sig line. It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

mathematical 'models' also predicted static, eternal universes 100 years ago, steady state, big crunch, String theory, M theory, global warming, peak oil, and no more snow,
observation on the other hand still points to a creation event, a glut of oil and record snow and cold outside my window right now!

If you don't think a model can look like anything you want, try making one, it's not very hard

 

[Ben Dhyan]

mathematical 'models' also predicted static, eternal universes 100 years ago, steady state, big crunch, String theory, M theory, global warming, peak oil, and no more snow,
observation on the other hand still points to a creation event, a glut of oil and record snow and cold outside my window right now!

If you don't think a model can look like anything you want, try making one, it's not very hard

Yeah,,,,the hard part is getting a well heeled sponsor and a nice big financial grant for doing so.

ps....the word is that the real money is in global warming models...the more scary the model the better so the tax payers will readily cough up to be saved...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah,,,,the hard part is getting a well heeled sponsor and a nice big financial grant for doing so.

ps....the word is that the real money is in global warming models...the more scary the model the better so the tax payers will readily cough up to be saved...

It's been working for millennia, the more scary the computer simulation, or the mask dancing around the fire, the better the sacrifices.