Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[outhouse]

you say that there was substantial existence before the BB

No I did not say that.

I said a singularity expanded.

Stop creating what you want from my words due to your misunderstanding.

but don't know how and when it came into existence,

No I did not say that.


I know a singularity expanded.

I know when it expanded.

I know at this time period, all matter came into existence in this space and time.

but deny it is possibly a part of an eternal process

No I did not say that.

I said I don't know exactly where the singularity came from, or what caused it to expand.

 

[outhouse]

You are all over the place

No your understanding is all over the place, as well as your comprehensive abilities.

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?

Because, our space time and matter that evolved into what we know, started from a singularity.

The matter in our universe formed singularities.

Unlike you, I don't have all the answers, nor claim to

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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've attached/uploaded it.

I am not mocking the physicists, they put forward their science to show what they understand, ie. the universe is eternal

Actually they mostly put forward pure mathematics. Not science except insofar as the "science" was a numbers game (to use your words). If you are interested in understanding what that means, I've provided a simple explanation but given the complexity of the topic, even simple isn't simple:

Spoiler: The explanation

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.

, if it can't be falsified, it will stand.

It can't be falsified because it isn't based upon testable theories. There are dozens of different variations or extensions of the standard model, and both within the standard model and within others there are thousands of papers like this which propose various solutions to the same problems. It's done mathematically. I can't falsify an equation.

If you think mathematical equations can determine absolute reality, then I can just say it is hubris.

That's a good description of what the authors assumed.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I agree and disagree.

I understand what you're saying. The unity of all infinites as one infinite, but still the infinite is a composition of an infinite amount of infinites, so we're both correct.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you think mathematical equations can determine absolute reality, then I can just say it is hubris.

Hubris? Maybe. Standard physics? Absolutely.
"In conventional quantum field theory, the fundamental objects are mathematical points in spacetime"
Szabo, R. J. (2011). An Introduction to String theory and D-brane Dynamics (2nd Ed.). Imperial College Press.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No I did not say that.

I said a singularity expanded.

Stop creating what you want from my words due to your misunderstanding.

No I did not say that.

I know a singularity expanded.

I know when it expanded.

I know at this time period, all matter came into existence in this space and time.

No I did not say that.

I said I don't know exactly where the singularity came from, or what caused it to expand.

Why are you talking about the BB of this observable universe.....I have not been asking you about that, I have been asking you about the black hole that preexisted the BB of this observable universe,. and about the other universes of the multiverse that existed before the time of the BB of this observable universe? Please admit that you did imply that these substantial objects existed before the BB of this observable universe?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No your understanding is all over the place, as well as your comprehensive abilities.

Because, our space time and matter that evolved into what we know, started from a singularity.

The matter in our universe formed singularities.

Unlike you, I don't have all the answers, nor claim to

Where did I claim to have all the answers? Seriously outhouse, I seem to sense a contradiction in the things you are saying and I'm trying to put questions to you that, if actually answered would clear up the matter. So let's proceed in a logical manner....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've attached/uploaded it.

Actually they mostly put forward pure mathematics. Not science except insofar as the "science" was a numbers game (to use your words). If you are interested in understanding what that means, I've provided a simple explanation but given the complexity of the topic, even simple isn't simple:

Spoiler: The explanation

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.

It can't be falsified because it isn't based upon testable theories. There are dozens of different variations or extensions of the standard model, and both within the standard model and within others there are thousands of papers like this which propose various solutions to the same problems. It's done mathematically. I can't falsify an equation.

That's a good description of what the authors assumed.

Thank you for uploading the paper LegionOnomaMoi, interesting but definitely beyond my math to decipher, so I will be content with the abstract.and summary.

Since this paper would have been peer reviewed, I presume Elsevier BV's reviewers would be sufficiently expert in the field, that members of the science community in general will take the the paper seriously. For those scientists who believe it is has serious errors, they no doubt have the opportunity to prepare a rebuttal and submit it to blogs, and/or to the publishers if they think it has sufficient merit. So there you go LOM, don't waste your math critique of the paper with people whose math is not up to understanding what those equations actually mean.....submit it to your scientist peers and see if your refutation gets traction.

All the best and get back to us if you have takers....

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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!

Read that paragraph again that I quoted from the article itself:
"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."

These scientists, like those of religious faith, so often want to eliminate doubt and ignorance, even at the expense of the Truth. If we don't know, we have to live with that, and in the case of the Big Bang, that doubt could well be the result of divine intent--and if it is, it will always be there, though that shouldn't stop us from looking.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Since this paper would have been peer reviewed, I presume Elsevier BV's reviewers

Academic publishing companies do not determine or involve themselves in the peer-review process. Rather, whether it is a monograph series, a journal, or some other academic publication that is reviewed, the editorial board determines who reviews material and how. This isn't relevant, but one of my central concerns in general is trying to bridge the gap between how scientists do research and the nature of the sciences vs. public perception. Understanding peer-review is part of that.

would be sufficiently expert in the field, that members of the science community in general will take the the paper seriously.

Peer-review in general is to screen out (ideally) garbage before the real peer-review: once a paper is published every other scientist in the field or related fields can try to tear it apart if they think it wrong. More importantly, though, there are hundreds and hundreds of these papers purposing different mathematical solutions to such problems. It's all based on mathematical formulations we can't even test. It's taken seriously because so much of modern physics is this kind of non-empirical mathematical study (or semi-empirical, in that the theories which were mathematically woven together do have an empirical basis and empirical findings do limit the number of solutions to the various equations in cosmology, particle physics, etc.).

For those scientists who believe it is has serious errors

Again, any serious errors are not testable. There is nothing wrong with the math. However, there was nothing wrong in the math that they changed either. And other physicists have proposed many hundreds of variations of this type (it's practically the entirety of the literature in cosmology and certainly theoretical physics). There are so many such variant solutions that they fall into several large classes.

So there you go LOM, don't waste your math critique of the paper

I'm not critiquing the math. The mathematics is fine, at least in that there are no errors. The problem is the justification for it. I can derive solutions to EInstein's field equations which allow for causal paradoxes or demonstrate mathematically that a spaceship light-years away can turn and suddenly be thousands of years into the future relative to our "now" or thousands into the past, etc. The first multiverse theory didn't even require such solutions or mathematical manipulations; it was merely an interpretation of QM.

The problem is the justification for removing one singularity that remains in the "standard model" (because every piece of evidence supports it and nothing has been found which contradicts it) just to exchange it with another.

 

[metis]

I think that is quite some spiel you all got going there with a whirlwind of voodoo and bluffing and besides, you have no reason to complain as the Churches are going along for the ride even though it is all crude nonsense.

The problem is generational and fed by an indoctrinating process through schools and colleges, convenient if you are an academic making a few dollars and gaining a reputation in the process but worthless in content and character.

There is no such thing as the 'scientific method' unless you call speculative conclusions using variable assertions a method and dressing it up in colorful language. There is however that vicious strain of empiricism that keeps academics in jobs and humanity entertained with outrageous claims...

You really have no clue how scientists really work, and all I read above is just another bizarre conspiracy theory from someone who has an "agenda".

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about how evil evolutionary theory was, but when I began to investigate it back in the early 1960's when I was in high school, I found out that I wasn't being told the truth. During my ungrad years, I got into anthropology, went on in that field for my graduate work, and then I taught it for 30 years after that.

What you are claiming about scientists simply is an imaginary fabrication. Just like in every other field, scientists cover the full spectrum of beliefs and behavior, although certainly not all of what we see is good and above board. But science is mostly self-correcting, as the minute I put forth Hypothesis A, some other scientist is likely to disagree and put forth Hypothesis B, and then...

Even if one picks up a copy of Scientific American and looks at the comments near the beginning, what they'll read are scientists cross-checking each other, often in strong disagreement.

 

[outhouse]

Why are you talking about the BB of this observable universe.....I have not been asking you about that,

Because that is all we know with certainty

I have been asking you about the black hole that preexisted the BB of this observable universe,.

We don't know.

And I was very clear about it only being a possibility as it is a singularity

and about the other universes of the multiverse that existed before the time of the BB of this observable universe?

We don't know.

And I was very clear about it only being a possibility as it is a singularity

Please admit that you did imply that these substantial objects existed before the BB of this observable universe?

No, you have serious comprehensive issues.


I was very very clear in that they were only possibilities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think that is quite some spiel you all got going there with a whirlwind of voodoo and bluffing and besides, you have no reason to complain as the Churches are going along for the ride even though it is all crude nonsense.

I know, it's awful. And all because the Churches were dedicated to ensuring nobody would discover REAL astrolo...I mean, astonomy because they are in league with the aliens, and if we ever learned the astrolog...sorry, astronomy that you know we'd figure out that the alien invasion is coming and be able to prepare for it.

The problem is generational and fed by an indoctrinating process through schools and colleges, convenient if you are an academic making a few dollars

Right. Because academia is where all the money is. If you are lucky enough not to rely entirely on student loans for an undergrad degree and to get into a doctoral program that includes a master's (or doesn't, but doesn't require you to have one either) AND enough scholarships, fellowships, etc., to actually not loose money during the next ~7-10 years you'll spend studying while doing grunt work that requires expertise yet pays minimum wage, also that you can finally get that doctorate! And THEN you are in luck, because once you've got that, it's only an extremely competitive field where you are hired with a salary that is below that of people operating toll booths but with less job security (they don't actually kill you, but "publish or perish" is not a joke). Finally, if a tenure spot opens up and (after your life is gone over with a fine-toothed comb just to make sure you didn't accidentally forget to cite a source in some paper that you maybe published in grad school) you are hired, you actually do have job security, and a salary that hopefully you can live off of (providing that you aren't already beyond bankrupt due to the many thousands upon thousands of dollars you had to borrow to get just that undergrad degree, let alone whatever you had to do to survive during grad school).

It's a miracle that more people aren't taking advantage of this guaranteed path to success and a life of lies and ease.

and gaining a reputation in the process but worthless in content and character.

Gaining a reputation. Right. How many people with PhDs have you heard of? The vast majority only have a reputation in their field, where often enough that reputation ensures that others who disagree with them will be on the look-out to tear into their work. For example, many of my favorite linguists who were or are major contributors to the cognitive sciences were involved in so fierce a battle that there's actually a book The Linguistic Wars describing it (this isn't the only history of modern linguistics book that describes the polemics, acrimony, and so forth but it has the most apt title).

There is no such thing as the 'scientific method'

Here's a statement we both think is true, but I'm willing to bet we think so for very different reasons.

unless you call speculative conclusions using variable assertions

Do the variables represent (symbolically) the assertions or do you mean assertions about variables? Actually, "variable assertion" sounds like a nice way to informally introduce parts of symbolic logic.

There is however that vicious strain of empiricism that keeps academics in jobs and humanity entertained with outrageous claims.

Seriously. What a con. It's not like you're posting this on an online discussion board that required decades of research and work by astronomers & astrophysicists, mathematicians, engineers, cognitive scientists, linguists, computer scientists, physicists, and scientists in various other fields. Oh wait. You are.

Few over the centuries had the necessary depth and breath of historical and technical details to make a go at understanding where the herd driven conclusions come from and even the best ones such as Von Humboldt's 'Cosmos' commentary fail to nail down exactly where things went wrong

How many languages do you know?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

You really have no clue how scientists really work, and all I read above is just another bizarre conspiracy theory from someone who has an "agenda".

Conspiracy indeed !, you people don't even understand your own system which leaves me to explain what Sir Isaac was trying to do, whether it is accepted or not is irrelevant but considering humanity has spent the last century listening to a meaningless wordplay it is time to correct these wild assertions.

Newton's absolute/relative time is nothing other than the timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time which converts the variations in the total length of the day from noon to noon to a 24 hour average -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton

The empiricists thought that Sir Isaac was defining time and a lot of handwringing went on as nobody knew what it was supposed to represent even though what Newton was doing was expressing in his idiosyncratic way a timekeeping correlation -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is
justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

If you want to know what absolute/relative time means in terms of a pendulum clock then Huygen's basically explains it even though a few important things need to be modified -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy" Huygens

Chr. Huygens - Instructions ... Pendulum-Watches ... Longitude at Sea

How you get from a wonderful timekeeping facility which converts natural noon into the average 24 hour day where the 'average' substitutes for 'constant' rotation via the Lat/Long system to an ideology of time travel, time dilation or some other nonsense is quite a feat of contrived fiction.

If you can explain away Newton's version of the Equation of Time as something else then be my guest but that is not even close to the full story. Sir Isaac had some other conception in mind when he turns to the calendar based equatorial coordinate system.

 

[metis]

Conspiracy indeed !, you people...

I stopped reading your post right after this "you people" part because it was obvious that all I was going to read next was just more nonsense, so why waste time trying to deal with a know-it-all who's outside of science and clueless as to how it works, and then also resorts to stereotyping, which is a form of lying. We tell children not to do this, but then some adults apparently didn't listen and obey either their parents nor their teachers.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I stopped reading your post right after this "you people" part because it was obvious that all I was going to read next was just more nonsense, so why waste time trying to deal with a know-it-all who's outside of science and clueless as to how it works, and then also resorts to stereotyping, which is a form of lying. We tell children not to do this, but then some adults apparently didn't listen and obey either their parents nor their teachers.

Of course you stopped reading for what else were you going to do !.

You want to shove time travel down the throats of the wider population then fair enough but not on the technical and historical records using Sir Isaac's description of a timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time. You may wish to believe that Newton was defining time and spend another hundred years chanting 'time is relative' but it will always be contrived fiction built on more of the same.

Don't worry,you are not the first to stop reading and you won't be the last.

 

[gnostic]

Why are you talking about the BB of this observable universe.....I have not been asking you about that, I have been asking you about the black hole that preexisted the BB of this observable universe,. and about the other universes of the multiverse that existed before the time of the BB of this observable universe? Please admit that you did imply that these substantial objects existed before the BB of this observable universe?

Black hole? You think there was a black hole before the Big Bang?

What make you think there was a pre-BB black hole? You can provide sources for your claim?

I am asking because that article you quoted and linked to, in the OP, make no mention of any "black hole". The model presented in the article, is also still at hypothesis-stage, has not been tested, nor peer reviewed. So far Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das made a lot of predictions with their new model, but so far they presented nothing more than "what-if" or "what it might have been".

Their (Ali-Das) model is in the same boat, as all the other untested and untestable hypotheses about before the observable universe, about the "singularity" or in steady-state model, or the end of universe predictions (Big Crunch, Big Freeze, Big Bounce, etc), are unfulfilled predictions.

We are still stuck with the observable universe of about 13.8 billion years. We don't know what happened before this time-frame. We don't know if there was a singularity or not, pre-BB (13.8 billion years ago) or the universe have always existed (Ali-Das' model). So unless Ali-Das have the technology that no one else has, to observe beyond 13.8 billion-year time-limit, their model is just another stalled hypothesis/prediction.

But I am digressing. I still want to know for the source(s) to your claim of pre-BB "Black Hole"?

 

[metis]

Yes, one cosmological hypothesis is that our universe started out as a black hole or as a result of a black hole, so that has to be considered in the running.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Newton's absolute/relative time is nothing other than the timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time which converts the variations in the total length of the day from noon to noon to a 24 hour average

Actually it wasn't Newton who introduced the notion of relativity in which time was absolute and so was space (more specifically, absolute uniform motion existed and all movement was with respect to the same space). Before Einstein, and before Newton, we had Galilean relativity.

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is
justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

My god, you've been at this for years! I stopped looking beyond 2003, but you've literally been repeating this all over the internet, from discussion boards to comments on blogs, for over a decade at least. All with the same arguments and same sources (the same handful of quotes taken out of context and out-of-print books, among other things), without ever really doing some fairly basic research. Amazing dedication. FYI- it's bad form to quote an English translation then provide the German title you didn't actually read.

If you want to know what absolute/relative time means in terms of a pendulum clock then Huygen's basically explains it even though a few important things need to be modified -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy" Huygens

Which was known decades earlier when Kepler published his his work. Of course, despite finding this result (and publishing it), he tried to deny that it was true:
"This will become clearer if we supply a few numbers. We adopt Kepler's value for the total quantity of the additional rotation due to sunlight. The archetype for unassisted terrestrial rotation, he felt sure, was 360 days in a year. The 5* rotations beyond these which the earth in fact experienced were therefore due to sunlight." (emphasis added)
Stephenson, B. (1987). Kepler's Physical Astronomy (Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences Vol. 13). Springer.

If you can explain away Newton's version of the Equation of Time

Where is this equation?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, one cosmological hypothesis is that our universe started out as a black hole or as a result of a black hole, so that has to be considered in the running.

It is, but it is not contained in the source that ben had provided in the OP.

The Ali-Das' model make no mention of any black hole, so I am asking him for source(s).