The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Tiapan]

I think the Big expansion is actually evidence for a previously collapsed local "universe".
Even god cannot bend the rules of mathematics and physics to instantaneously start this massive object spinning.
And if the object is spinning is there not a minimum size it can be without its outer edge exceeding the speed of light axiom?
So it was never nothing.
No God required - an endlessly oscillating universe, perhaps one of many.
Are quasars simply other local Big Bangs? .

Cheers

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think the Big expansion is actually evidence for a previously collapsed local "universe".
Even god cannot bend the rules of mathematics and physics to instantaneously start this massive object spinning.
And if the object is spinning is there not a minimum size it can be without its outer edge exceeding the speed of light axiom?
So it was never nothing.
No God required - an endlessly oscillating universe, perhaps one of many.
Are quasars simply other local Big Bangs? .

Cheers

But there's no evidence whatsoever from the back side of the Big Bang to support that theory or any other. A God wouldn't play with the rules of natural law in order to maintain the rational qualities of this universe, but that doesn't mean they have to be rational if irrationality was God's desire.

I think you meant to say "is there not a maximum size....", though I'm not sure what your point is either way--though maybe a black hole might qualify, but without your requisite super size. Besides, it looks like Einstein's luminal speed limit holds for matter, energy and gravity, but not for whatever space itself is composed of.

And, an endlessly oscillating universe requires one thing, time, but the quantum ether our universe is suspended in is apparently timeless. Time would only exist within the universe(s), and the many worlds interpretation is thankfully falling out of favor anyway.

 

[`mud]

What contains a nothingness, where does it 'end' ?
What contains a singularity, what's it's temperature ?
Why isn't anything moving, and in what direction ?
What is friction, inertia, momentum, inside the singularity?
What is 'distance', how far is it, how long does it take,
to get there from here, how much time, inside the singularity ?
~
big bang my arsse !
~
'mud

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

What contains a nothingness, where does it 'end' ?
What contains a singularity, what's it's temperature ?
Why isn't anything moving, and in what direction ?
What is friction, inertia, momentum, inside the singularity?
What is 'distance', how far is it, how long does it take,
to get there from here, how much time, inside the singularity ?
~
big bang my arsse !
~
'mud

That's muddy even for you, except for the end which is a simple unfounded declaration. You axed.

 

[Tiapan]

But there's no evidence whatsoever from the back side of the Big Bang to support that theory or any other.

.

I think you missed the point, if the universe is rotating that is the proof of some previous system.
Think spinning Ice skater draws her arms in spins faster, puts her arms out spins slower. This is called the law of conservation of angular momentum. Even if the universe is spinning very slowly in the order of 10^-13 radians per second if wind back the clock 13.7 billion years to the big expansion then it was a lot smaller and spinning a lot faster.

A God wouldn't play with the rules of natural law in order to maintain the rational qualities of this universe, but that doesn't mean they have to be rational if irrationality was God's desire.

As God seems imaginary to me, sure he can do all sorts of impossible things like superman, but really its only a pile of hypothetical conjecture.

I think you meant to say "is there not a maximum size....", though I'm not sure what your point is either way--though maybe a black hole might qualify, but without your requisite super size. Besides, it looks like Einstein's luminal speed limit holds for matter, energy and gravity, but not for whatever space itself is composed of.

Nope, I meant "minimum" size due to high rotation velocity, conservation of angular momentum and speed of light limit, all verifiable physics axioms.

And, an endlessly oscillating universe requires one thing, time, but the quantum ether our universe is suspended in is apparently timeless. Time would only exist within the universe(s), and the many worlds interpretation is thankfully falling out of favor anyway.

Michelson and Morley failed to show the existence of an ether in there classic experiment.

Next define space eg vacuum.
Consider 1 cubic metre of space containing rocks liquids and gases.
We consider this not a vacuum because it is full of stuff.
OK remove said rocks liquids and gases, now we have the commonly agreed version of a vacuum.
However if half a dozen photons are traversing this cubic metre of space is it truly empty?
Now go out 14 billion light years beyond the 13.7 billion light years that light (mainly gamma) from the big expansion has not yet penetrated is this not the true vacuum, space which has no characteristic except arbitrary dimension.

Finally define Universe. Is a Universe the system that evolves from a big expansion or is it the whole kit and caboodle encompassing many possible big expansion events independent of our own (hence quasars)?

Perhaps when all the stars go out and we finally loose those last 4 degrees K, we will all turn into a Bose-Einstein Condensate and instantly do a quantum coalesce and start over again or mingle with other expanding universes thus creating new ones. Now that is speculation.

Cheers

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

.

I think you missed the point, if the universe is rotating that is the proof of some previous system.

I don't see how, and in any case, there is no apparent rotation of the universe, only galaxies. All we know is that it's expanding. I'd like to know where you heard that?

As God seems imaginary to me, sure he can do all sorts of impossible things like superman, but really its only a pile of hypothetical conjecture.

As is the existence of God. What's your point?

Michelson and Morley failed to show the existence of an ether in there classic experiment.

Quantum particle entanglement has to take place in a timeless environment "removed" from our 4-D reality with it's dimension of time. This place of removal, on top of having no time, may have any number of dimensions.

Next define space eg vacuum.
Consider 1 cubic metre of space containing rocks liquids and gases.
We consider this not a vacuum because it is full of stuff.
OK remove said rocks liquids and gases, now we have the commonly agreed version of a vacuum.
However if half a dozen photons are traversing this cubic metre of space is it truly empty?
Now go out 14 billion light years beyond the 13.7 billion light years that light (mainly gamma) from the big expansion has not yet penetrated is this not the true vacuum, space which has no characteristic except arbitrary dimension.

We don't know what's beyond the 13 billion years we can see (in all directions). Space, at that point goes superluminal carrying matter with it and making the light to slow to catch up to us. This is recent stuff.

Finally define Universe. Is a Universe the system that evolves from a big expansion or is it the whole kit and caboodle encompassing many possible big expansion events independent of our own (hence quasars)?

We have to learn the limits of this universe first, which the above shows may now possibly be infinite. We used to think the sky of an infinite universe would be infinitely bright. But that was before learning that it's expanding to superluminal speed.

 

[viole]

.

I think you missed the point, if the universe is rotating that is the proof of some previous system.
Think spinning Ice skater draws her arms in spins faster, puts her arms out spins slower. This is called the law of conservation of angular momentum. Even if the universe is spinning very slowly in the order of 10^-13 radians per second if wind back the clock 13.7 billion years to the big expansion then it was a lot smaller and spinning a lot faster.

Rotating relative to what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

I think the Big expansion is actually evidence for a previously collapsed local "universe".

Sorry, but where are you getting that from?

No God required - an endlessly oscillating universe, perhaps one of many.
Are quasars simply other local Big Bangs? .

I do agree that science don't need God to explain what had happened and what will or might happen in the future about the future, but as far as I know, there are only evidences for expanding universe model (or the Big Bang), so far.

A lot of the other models or theories about other cosmologies, like the oscillating cosmology (also known as the Big Bounce), which is the one you are suggesting, or the various multiverse models, etc, are still theoretical and untestable.

And we still don't know how the universe will end, THOUGH the current situation is that the universe IS STILL expanding and even accelerating in its expansion, does lead towards the Big Freeze model, but this still "theoretical" theory may be debunk in the future if they find new evidences that the universe is contracting, towards a Big Crunch, or to a series of crunch-bang-crunch (or oscillating model).

The problem with predicting the future is that situation may change, in which we may throw out the current theory or even all of them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

.

Michelson and Morley failed to show the existence of an ether in there classic experiment.

Next define space eg vacuum.
Consider 1 cubic metre of space containing rocks liquids and gases.
We consider this not a vacuum because it is full of stuff.
OK remove said rocks liquids and gases, now we have the commonly agreed version of a vacuum.
However if half a dozen photons are traversing this cubic metre of space is it truly empty?

Cheers

The M and M experiment presumed the concept of 'ether' that represented some omnipresent subtle energy-like substance filling the vacuum of space was static like an ocean, and thus the earth moved through it like a submerged submarine traveling the depths of the ocean. But the Doppler effect was not detected, not because there is not some subtle substance present, but that it is 'locked' to the earth much like the atmosphere is, and thus any 'bow wave' effect would be way beyond the earths atmospheric limits....and perhaps even be not associated with the planetary field at all, but with the solar system's field.

The so called vacuum of space is not a vacuum but in fact contains a very high energy density known as zero point energy....considered by some to be dark energy....and which is omnipresent... The photons, gamma rays, etc., that traverse the so called vacuum of inner and outer space are actually traveling through the omnipresent zero point energy field. So while the zero point energy is not precisely the same substance as that originally imagined as ether, nevertheless the space that ether was presumed to have filled, is filled by zpe..

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Rotating relative to what?

Ciao

- viole

Relative to itself. If the universe was rotating, we'd be able to determine that even if we were at the exact center and there was no background radiation or stars or whatever.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

That's cute.

Time is a human construct to gauge the passage of occurrences. Just because time as we know it didn't start prior to the start of the universe as we know it doesn't mean the universe is static, or that an effect caused itself from nothing.

Peace

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quantum particle entanglement has to take place in a timeless environment "removed" from our 4-D reality with it's dimension of time. This place of removal, on top of having no time, may have any number of dimensions.

This isn't at all true. Quantum entanglement is intrinsic to quantum mechanics, which isn't even relativistic and thus involves a 3D reality with "absolute time" (i.e., universal, pre-Einstein "time"), and in relativistic quantum mechanics entanglement takes place in 4D spacetime. There is no theory that even suggests that there could be "any number of dimensions" in which quantum entanglement could take place, and no theory which suggests more than 3 dimensions are needed for it (theories which demand more dimensions, such as M-theory and other string theories, demand more dimensions for reasons that have nothing to do with entanglement).

We don't know what's beyond the 13 billion years we can see (in all directions).

The universe is almost 100 billion light-years across, even though it is only nearly 14 billion years old. This is because the space in which galaxies exist has been expanding such that the distance between galaxies has grown faster than the speed of light.

But that was before learning that it's expanding to superluminal speed.

It isn't expanding "to superluminal speed". The universe arguably has been expanding faster than the speed of light since the big bang, but this really isn't a good way to think about it. Rather, space itself has been stretching in such a way that the spaces between galaxies has grown faster than if they were travelling at the speed of light.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's cute.

Time is a human construct to gauge the passage of occurrences. Just because time as we know it didn't start prior to the start of the universe as we know it doesn't mean the universe is static, or that an effect caused itself from nothing.

Peace

Time is a dimension of our 4-D universe. Transactions between entangled quantum particles happen across the universe in an instant, apparently in a timeless "quantumland", so to speak, in which our universe is suspended. Apparently dark energy and dark matter are manifestations of this quantumland.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Time is a dimension of our 4-D universe. Transactions between entangled quantum particles happen across the universe in an instant, apparently in a timeless "quantumland", so to speak, in which our universe is suspended.

Alternatively, it happens when one prepares a system in a particular way in the 3D reality we experience, is not described in quantum mechanics as taking place except in the 3D universe we experience, and the effect of observation/measurement on an entangled system takes place in the 3D universe we experience and affects those systems it is entangled with in this 3D universe. Nonlocality and effects in "no-time" simply mean that no time is taken for changes in an entangled system to effect that system or systems it is entangled with, not that it occurs somewhere else or in some other dimension or in some exotic, alternative universe.

Apparently dark energy and dark matter are manifestations of this quantumland.

They are not. They have little to do with "quantumland" or quantum physics but a great deal to do with general relativity and cosmology more generally.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This isn't at all true. Quantum entanglement is intrinsic to quantum mechanics, which isn't even relativistic and thus involves a 3D reality with "absolute time" (i.e., universal, pre-Einstein "time"), and in relativistic quantum mechanics entanglement takes place in 4D spacetime. There is no theory that even suggests that there could be "any number of dimensions" in which quantum entanglement could take place, and no theory which suggests more than 3 dimensions are needed for it (theories which demand more dimensions, such as M-theory and other string theories, demand more dimensions for reasons that have nothing to do with entanglement).

As you said, it isn't even relativistic, because it's happening outside of our 4 dimensions. And I only mention the other dimensions as a possible connection to quantumland and dark energy/matter.

The universe is almost 100 billion light-years across, even though it is only nearly 14 billion years old. This is because the space in which galaxies exist has been expanding such that the distance between galaxies has grown faster than the speed of light.

That's entirely possible, but where do you get your 100 billion light years across, or even if the universe isn't infinite?

It isn't expanding "to superluminal speed". The universe arguably has been expanding faster than the speed of light since the big bang, but this really isn't a good way to think about it. Rather, space itself has been stretching in such a way that the spaces between galaxies has grown faster than if they were travelling at the speed of light.

As we look away from Earth, the further something is away from us, the greater the red-shift toward light speed. And it reaches that speed, in all directions from us, at 13 billion light years away and then "disappear". The same is true for anyone at any location in the universe unless there's an edge. We don't know if there's an edge and therefore don't know if there's an across much less what that distance might be.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Alternatively, it happens when one prepares a system in a particular way in the 3D reality we experience, is not described in quantum mechanics as taking place except in the 3D universe we experience, and the effect of observation/measurement on an entangled system takes place in the 3D universe we experience and affects those systems it is entangled with in this 3D universe. Nonlocality and effects in "no-time" simply mean that no time is taken for changes in an entangled system to effect that system or systems it is entangled with, not that it occurs somewhere else or in some other dimension or in some exotic, alternative universe.

How do the one entangled particle affect the other, even across the universe, in an instant? Cosmologists aren't suggesting that such transactions take place in another universe, only in a so far undetected part of this one, and is probably associated with dark matter/energy..

They are not. They have little to do with "quantumland" or quantum physics but a great deal to do with general relativity and cosmology more generally.

Dark energy is what's theorized as driving the acceleration of the universe's expansion. And given the little we do know about dark energy/matter, it would be very foolish to say it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics--which permeates everything else.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As you said, it isn't even relativistic, because it's happening outside of our 4 dimensions.

It isn't relativistic because of the ways in which high energy processes in quantum mechanics can't be described in wave or matrix quantum mechanics, but require a mathematical framework which allows for the annihilation and creation of particles and energy. It has nothing to do with dimensions, as both in classical and quantum mechanics systems are typically described by spaces of 1-dimension to tens of thousands of dimensions. The actual observable properties of both classical and quantum systems, as well as the process of entanglement, takes place within the universe we experience.

And I only mention the other dimensions as a possible connection to quantumland and dark energy/matter.

There is no connection via extra dimensions.

That's entirely possible, but where do you get your 100 billion light years across, or even if the universe isn't infinite?

CMB, redshift, etc. The same kind of evidence we have for the big bang for the most part.

As we look away from Earth, the further something is away from us, the greater the red-shift toward light speed.

Redshift is light, or rather it is the observation of light/electromagnetic radiation. We don't ever observe anything moving faster than the speed of light. We do infer from what we observe that the space in which galaxies sit has grown as if they were moving away from one another faster than the speed of light.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How do the one entangled particle affect the other, even across the universe, in an instant?

Arguably, it doesn't. This conclusion involves particular assumptions about the ontology of quantum systems that e.g., aren't part of the orthodox interpretation. What we know is that we can prepare a system of, say, paired photons such that when experimenters observe the state of one they will know what the state of the other will be or would be when/if measured. According to the orthodox interpretation, this is merely a result of the statistical formalism that IS quantum mechanics and tells us what everything in quantum mechanics does: what the outcome of experiments will be. Quantum systems are abstract, mathematical entities in Hilbert space. I don't buy this.
Alternatively, you are right and the measurement of one photon can affect the state of another instantaneously regardless of distance. Even if this is true, and I think it is, it MUST happen in the 3D world we experience. In 4D spacetime, to say that one photon instantaneously affects another light-years away is meaningless, as simultaneity doesn't exist. In higher dimensions, it is equally meaningless to say this. Only in a universe in which we do not treat time as a dimension can we make sense of entanglement or superpositions as instantaneous connections among quantum systems.

Cosmologists aren't suggesting that such transactions take place in another universe, only in a so far undetected part of this one, and is probably associated with dark matter/energy.

Cosmologists aren't suggesting much of anything here, as entanglement is a phenomenon of the microcosm.

Dark energy is what's theorized as driving the acceleration of the universe's expansion. And given the little we do know about dark energy/matter, it would be very foolish to say it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics--which permeates everything else.

It has everything to do with gravitation as it exists according to general relativity which is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

 

[Brian Schuh]

The Talmud spoke of the Big Bang over a thousand years before any scientist did.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We don't ever observe anything moving faster than the speed of light. We do infer from what we observe that the space in which galaxies sit has grown as if they were moving away from one another faster than the speed of light.

I don't completely understand why myself, it has to do with an object going superluminal as it passes the Hubble Sphere but before it reaches the event horizon. In that relatively small gap, we're able to observe galaxies at actual superluminal speeds.

See for yourself:

Arguably, it doesn't. This conclusion involves particular assumptions about the ontology of quantum systems that e.g., aren't part of the orthodox interpretation.

And there's the rub. The long ascendant Transactional Interpretation, accounts for all quantum weirdness, explains the EPR paradox and entanglement. The objection to it has been mainly that having transactions taking place both forward and backward in time is just counter-intuitive. But Ruth Kastner, in her recent book, Understanding Our Unseen Realities: Solving Quantum Riddles, among other things, addressed the intuitive problem by referring the transactions taking place not backward and forward in time, but outside of time. I think at least part of the problem we've been having is the different interpretations we're using.

What we know is that we can prepare a system of, say, paired photons such that when experimenters observe the state of one they will know what the state of the other will be or would be when/if measured. According to the orthodox interpretation, this is merely a result of the statistical formalism that IS quantum mechanics and tells us what everything in quantum mechanics does: what the outcome of experiments will be. Quantum systems are abstract, mathematical entities in Hilbert space. I don't buy this.

But entanglement has not just been observed, it's been proven: http://www.cnet.com/news/researchers-demonstrate-quantum-entanglement-prove-einstein-wrong/

In 4D spacetime, to say that one photon instantaneously affects another light-years away is meaningless, as simultaneity doesn't exist.

The thing is, word's like instantaneous have no meaning in a timeless environment. How we're engaged with this timeless environment, I'm guessing has to do with quantum level interactions not being limited by the "indivisibility" of Planck spacetime. I believe if we find the answer to one, we'll discover the other--but that's just me.