Big Bang relation to creation myths.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I have started this thread in an effort to involve Paddoboy in this site and as such plan to be confrontational hopefully making the thread irresitable to him causing him to take back his Big Bang cheer leading roll☺.

    See I have started already☺.

    Will he come back or just come here on as he puts it holidays☺

    Well my concern stems from the background of the man who presented the Big Bang Theory.

    Who was he and where did he come from? What did he do for a job and could his job influenced his thinking in some small way.. this is why we need Paddoboy as he would know☺

    I have been interested in cosmology for a long time but sadly like most have not had any real education in the matter ...so perhaps I best outline my understanding of the events that leave us with the Big Bang Theory now recognised as our best model of evolution of the universe.

    It seems there was a time where folk who gave any thought to the matter considered the Universe to be eternal...it seems that view was called the steady state model but I really dont know if it was a scientific model or the general opinion of that time.

    I think it is useful to say that certainly there was at some point those who supported the steady state idea and those who supported the Big Bang idea.

    Further it is worth noting that the term Big Bang was a term used by a steady state proponent meant to riddicule the notion of "the big bang idea"...Rather than cause ridicule the term "Big Bank" stuck and today we have Big Bang cosmology.

    Also both these ideas existed well prior to anyone realising that the Universe was much much more than the Milky Way gallaxy...

    I wonder if the Big Bang Theory would have been pursued if the proponent realised that the universe was billions of times larger than our very very small milky way.

    My concern has been raised by others before me and is not novel in the least and if one cared to research my general proposition you will find my thoughts are far from original.

    But it seems events followed this course.

    Pagans had used the idea of a cosmic egg to explain creation and the idea appears in various forms and in various cultures and anyone interested will not have difficulty in finding out much more such that one can know the Catholic Church were in effect investigating a very old idea...its seems that prior to the formulation of the big bang there were folk who supported a steady state idea...which is not unusal as it was at that point the only idea out there.

    Dr Albert Einstein included a cosmological constant as I understand in recognition such would be required to maintain a steady state.

    He pulled back when Hubble said his observations suggested the universe was indeed expanding.

    But from this preoccupation with the idea of a cosmic egg the Catholic Church and presumably that it offerred a point of creation saw Georges Lemaître present the idea of the cosmic egg as the cosmic atom.

    A dressed up pagan idea presumably appealing because many cultures were happy with the notion and the church had a liking for taking pagan customs and beliefs and retailoring them to fit in their show.

    In any event he (Geotge) worked with a old idea not some observation that at that point led him to have those ideas.


    Using GR he presented the model which without the cosmological constant could produce the cosmic egg model...er big bang model.

    At that point the model was presented to support an idea rather than to explain an observation which one could think is the correct scientific method.


    Now folk who had been happy with a steady state universe saw the introduction of such a model as no more than an attempt by theists to offer some scientific basis to their notion of creation much like the creationist attempts today to have intelligent design taught as science in schools.

    Their approach follows the same course which is to make observations fit a preconceived notion rather than to make an observation and then using science to build a model.

    The intelligent design mob proceed from...There is a designer and here is why..

    Or It all had a start a point of creation a cosmic egg or cosmic atom and here is why...


    The Big Bang Theory stops short of the point of creation and proponents will quickly tell you that the theory does not deal with creation and only deals with the evolition of the universe which it picks up on only a split second after what we can only guess to be the point of creation that the theory does not cover☺.

    Up to that point we can deal in zillionths of a second even though it is billions of years ago...

    That could seem odd...but all we can determine that after some starting point upon which there is no comment the Universe was very hot and very dense and GR can only descibe this point as a singularity...a point where its math has broken down and cant be projected further.



    The Big Bang Theory was received well by some folk but labled as mere religion by its opponents.

    In favour of the theory it can be said it is reasonable given GR supports all of it and its predictions have been realised in most if not all cases...

    However perceived problems arose as to "flatness" and "sameness"☺ and if you are still reading you must know all about the concerns that were presented.

    These concerns if unanswered was seen by some to have the potential to cause the theory to be disregarded...
    Desparate times for those heavily invested in the idea...and remember we are shoring up an idea not explaining an observation...

    At this point it seems the theory was saved by The Theory of Inflation which I believe is a mathamatical solution to the percieved problem that requires the universe to undergo a rapid expansion that can be put as it growing from the size of a grape fruit (approximately☺) to in effect its current size or as one scientist puts it...in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second...a somewhat inconceivably short time...give it a whole second and we still have a solution that seems to...well it absolutely does...go against anything we can imagine...well to inject my personal opinion ..beyond anything I can imagine...and we are told it can do that with no observation to show that proposal.

    And can you imagine a grape fruit growing to the size of the Earth in under a second, or to the size of the solar system or the size of the gallaxy or to something approx 100 billion light years across (that we know of and there is much much more because out to that its still flat as) can anyone say with a straight face yes that is most reasonable...have you thought it through is all I ask.

    The proposition means that everything went from a hot dense state of presumable minor dimmmention (and here I am not sure ..is what we today observe have its start as something small but part of a larher hot dense state?... but this rapid growth just seems to me impossible and the fact that someone has math that says its possible does not relieve what one could expect to be the burden of providing evidence and observation to support the notion that the theory of inflation has any relationship to reality.

    Does it not seem that science has been employed to establish a pre conceived notion (well it has...what came first the observation or the egg..clearly the egg) that the universe had a point of creation and that point of creation and the events shortly theteafter could be said to support the notion of creation and presumably a creator...and looking at this part of the theory does it not suggest the notion was settled and later the math of GR employed to shore it up.

    The Big Bang Theory relies upon some observation but observation does not show us inflation or the hot dense state these matters are arrived at by extrapolation...the CBR is as far as observation takes us...ot is there but the theory has it there in support and I dont think anyone having observed it has said well what couldcit be...only one explaination has been offerred...

    So my question is what separates Big Bang cosmology from intelligent design ... is it more about leaving room for God than about explaining the actual observations.

    What observation entitles employement of the Theory of Inflation and could someone not come up with something less "God" like.

    Alex
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,745
    Nothing is settled. It's one possible model that explains observation. And the math works.
    For one thing, the chaos, which doesn't seem likely to support the orderly evolution of the material world according to a plan.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I would love to hear Paddoboy say that☺.

    Yes but the math had to be altered to make it work which required the playing down of the cosmological constant....would we need dark matter if the cosmological constant could be set for a non expanding universe...would we need dark energy?

    I dont know but trust that DrA may have built it in so as not to require anything dark...He was a very clever man...would adusting the CC remove the need for dark matter and energy...I dont know...thats the problem.

    And look how fast DrA gave in...Hubble says the universe is expanding and DrA does an about face saying he had made the biggest blunder of his life.

    Does that not sound strange?

    He spent years on GR do you think he would just roll over like that?

    What dont I know about here?


    Now to me it seems he threw in his hand too damn quick...and at that point do we know if Hubble had prepared a paper setting out his observations and had same been peer reviewed?

    I cant imagine one could present such a paper and it not cause arguement...Did it?

    I ask because I really dont know.

    I presume he had only recently determined the Milly Way was not the whole universe...when was that paper?


    I would look it up but I am not at all well after my opperation ... was in a Catholic Hospital building ironically and here is me giving them a hard time.



    So I doubt I can continue for a couple of days assuming I get better...anyways I guess if Paddoboy was going to appear he would have by now...maybe he is not even checking in here or he has and realises I have made a case he can not argue against☺

    I hope someone can tell us if Hubble presented a paper before DrA threw out his cosmological constant.

    Sorry I dont understand here at all.

    I guess you mean the God plan involves no chaos as with the big bang????

    That is one small point but you really need to work it up as I am sure we can include it and not alter the basic proposition.

    As I said in both cases the idea comes first then observations assembled to support the idea.

    Now if say Hubble made his observation and published a paper presenting an expanding universe then perhaps one could understand George getting to work with GR and upon working with it was able to then say...the observation is consistent with GR if you remove the cosmological constant...further expansion suggests such and such...and here is a question ... the onserved expansion was not enough to make it work...and the expansion of inflation was not observed to make a readonable extrapolation of it all getting back to a point...the Hubble observation could only take us back to a universe much the same size as we see it today...how much has the universe expanded after inflation slowed to the pace we observe?

    And what was the initial responce to the cosmic egg idea or the cosmic atom.....it was not good..not good at all...with many scientists saying it was just religion trying to sneak in creation...

    And at that time could one expect DrA to say ...now hang on it took me years coming up with the cosmological constant I aint throwing it out because a priest wants to push his creation ideas and present a pagan idea as science☺.

    I do think the most telling aspect is the readiness to accept the theory of inflation with no evidence to support a notion that gets the universe built in less than a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second...am I the only one who finds that just impossible to believe...without evidence.
    I doubt if anyone actually knows that is what one must swallow.

    Now if you had a different way of explaining the problems imflation sought to solve that would be much better...and frankly if yhete is anything to the theory I would say that yhe flatnesd and sameness must be dealt witj difgerently and supported by observation...

    Seems like it was the only straw available and was accepted cause it could save the idea.

    Have a great day...more than I am having...waiting on pain killers so for those who are now huffing and puffing over my speculation you can be happy because I am in great pain and suffering badly...so be happy for that☺

    Alex
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,938
    Ahh, yes the old science cheer leader label that a couple have given me here...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would certainly rather that label then the label that sticks to a couple of my critics, mainly the god bothering nuts and those simply with an anti mainstream streak down their back...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Just to fix a couple of errors which no one else has yet.
    The Father of the BB is generally thought to be Father George LaMaitre a Belgian Jesuit priest, but we should not be prejudiced in that regard.
    When Einstein first formulated GR, the prevailing thought of the day was that the universe was static, not "Steady State" as you have said.
    In the early/late fifties there were three prevailing theories competing against each other,,,The BB, Steady State and Oscillating model. SS involved a universe of uniform density and as galaxies expanded away, new matter was created to replace it roughly put. Oscillating theory was a continuation BB/recollapse, BB/recollapse, BB recollapse.

    Einstein's GR told him the universe was dynamic, but Albert was with the prevailing thought that it was static, so he gave the CC [or energy density of space] a value which had it balancing the attractive force of gravity wanting to collapse. NB: Hubble discovered the expansion [or the fact that the universe was dynamic] Einstein exclaimed it as his biggest blunder. But it appears now after finding that the expansion is accelerating, that he may have been correct.

    Anyway along comes the sixties and the discovery of the CMBR by Peniaz and Wilson, which gave the BB a kick-a-long and demoted the SS as a has been.
    NB: If ever we could show evidence that the Oscillating theory was valid, it's worth noting that it still actually encompasses the BB.
    Biggest thing against the Oscillating is that we do not see galaxies over the large observable universe scale, blue shifted, which on could expect if the Oscillating model was valid.

    And remember despite the BB leaving the door open somewhat for the creationists and god botherers, it's actually an indication that science has simply followed the scientific methodology and stuck with the BB, purely because it still best fits what we observe, and fits with GR like a finger in a bum.

    In summing Alex, as someone who believes science is totally self correcting, if there was any doubt about the BB, serious doubt [there are some minor points when compared to the four main pillars supporting it] it would not be hidden and there is absolutely no reasom why it is or could be entrenched.

    Bye
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    You know I am not trying to insult you...in fact I think if I were you I would be proud of the title.
    I know you could see through my effort to have you stay...the place has never been the same without you.
    Well not me☺
    I dont trust any of them.
    Folk say ...oh but he is a scientist first...bull dust faith comes first and everything fits in to match faith...its like you can take the guy outta the bush but you cant take the bush outta the guy...er man.☺
    Interesting.
    No doubt there are implications for each term but at that stage he possibly had not considered a Universe as laid out in Big Bang cosmology.
    I am a big fan and think his biggest blunder was his greatest insite...I would say that a decade ago and folk thought I was crazy well there is stuff out there now suggesting his biggest blunder was not such a blunder after all...but at least they may be coming around to where he was before those catholics caused him to throw in his hand☺.
    Yes and the steady state mob threw in the towel ..the wimps.
    I know I know ...There is a certain irony ...here the science comes as close as possible to giving thesists a point of creation, I know BB is only evolution of the universe, but surely a creationist could point and say God did that...but no...you cant make them happy.

    I still think the Theory of Inflation needs fixing...but I dont have the time☺

    I hope you can call in from time to time but I must say I do my best keeping the creationist in line.

    Thanks I really appreciate your input.

    Alex
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,547
    Or as some would put it

    Wisdom of the Masses

    Crap then and crap now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I should have been more clear.

    The opinion to which I refer was within the scientific community.

    At that time if you canvassed general opinion you would have a great majority say "God did it in six days some six thousand years ago".

    When I was young there was no question that God may not exist.

    Even in a public school we had scripture classes and it seemed to me that all the kids in the town where I lived went to Sunday school.

    Now think how it was if you went to a private school...prayers each morning and evening and more teaching along religious ground.

    And generally private schools produced folk who went on to higher jobs because they were better educated.

    Think of George L ...do you think he was not a theist first and scientist second.

    Why do you think they were so taken with the cosmic egg idea...at that time it was (and still is) a pagan creation myth.



    Certainly the opinion of the mob is useless and I cant believe the proponent of fact finding by popular vote in the other thread can be serious and as I pointed out to him the wiki link sets out clear limitations that excludes the method being useful other than a curiosity and an example of dumb luck. But you gotta give the method some credit it is the best evidence mustered to prove God so far and doesnt that tell us everything.☺

    However where I refer to general opinion that opinion was held by scientists of the time not the mob...being better expressed as "the general opinion of scientists"... and such opinion was at odds with the church who minister to a mob that believed in creation by God and that it took place in six days some six thousand years ago.

    I dont know if the notion of a static universe excluded creation and need to look that up but if it is similar to the notion of a steady state then no doubt it would be agin the churches model...they were stuck with the bronze age model and I suggest the cosmic egg idea was their attempt to get with the times ans inject some science...I see the cosmic egg approach no different to the intelligent design approach...

    I really do not think a steady state model is unrealistic given the Big Bang model seems have been the idea of a catholic priest who had already decided that the cosmic egg or cosmic atom was a good idea...I thought science worked this way...one makes the observation and then explains the observation...certainly not that one gets a pet idea and then employs science to support that idea...that is what intelligent design has done...what is so different where a catholic priest gets in his head a pagan creation idea and the sets out to use GR (which afyer ammendment did the job)..tell me I am wrong here.

    And folk say but the math he had the math.

    Well the math can be adjusted to fit the desired outcome...GR with the cosmological constant will support a static universe and presumably a steady state model..it is geometry it is a co ordinate sysyem...and you use the same geometry wheter you build a good house or a bad house..the math works for different masters.. but oh we dont want a static universe just adjust GR by setting CC at 0 (I think thats the way of it) or take it out of doing what it was put there for in the first place and that same math gives you an expanding universe.

    Where have I gone wrong here?

    Sure we have the CBR but other than the Big Bang explanation no one has offerred any alternative...we cant look beyond it and confirm its origin and depend on the theory to explain it...perhaps another theory could present explaining CBR differently but given all are happy with the cosmic egg that is unlikely to happen.


    The theory extrapolated the expansion I guess on the observed expansion and the theory was put together on that basis...but later when it became clear that the observed expansion could not be brought back to the "cosmic egg" in the time available the theory of inflation introduces an expansion of an extrodinary proportion to fix the expansion short fall.

    This theory has no observational evidence and simplified as I understand it basically says that if you double double double etc well that gives the result we need...is it that I am so ignorant that I miss something here or is my observation that the theory of inflation has no support by observation valid.


    We can map the CBR in fine detail but it offers no support for the theory of inflation.

    Without the theory of inflation the Big Bang model in its current form can not survive as I understand it.

    The theory of inflation tells us that the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit to all we can observe today ( and much more as I understand it) and I find the proposition of a steady state universe much easier to accept as being the more realistic proposition.
    Just think such expansion / unflation does it sound remotely plausible?

    But the universe must have inflated at a speed faster than the speed of light...yes it sure did...isnt that a problem...no no no not at all because it was only space at that point...man thats like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and saying...I was not stealing a cookie I was just removing this ant I saw in there that seems to have disappered.

    And I am not saying there is anything wrong with GR by the way...you critise the Big Bang and folk think you are critising GR...well no I am not...far from it...I have always regarded DrA as a brilliant man and he put CC in GR he had his reasons ...it was others who forced him to throw in his hand.


    So is the Universe really expanding...we are told the observations clearly show that it is...seems to have speeded up and slowed down...how do we really know the universe is expanding...have observations been made of gallllaxies vanishing from the observable universe past that boundary after which we will never see them again...I doubt it...so how do we know the universe is expanding?

    Bottom line is for me ...those long since eliminated critics claiming the Big Bang was religion using the back door to claim a science foundation were most probably right...if not we must accept the Universe grew from the size of a grape fruit to over 100 billion light years in diameter in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second...and we must accept that with no observation in support.

    What do we say about extrodinary claims requiring extordinary evidence...well where is the extordinary evidence of inflation.

    Alex
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,547
    Nope

    No credit given

    Remember the part which says to the effect

    Works when THE ANSWER IS KNOWN

    So in a highly religious region, you would only get (my view - delusional people who have no doubt about god) hence accordingly god (IN THAT REGION)

    Middle of, say China, no god

    ***

    Think egg is just a metaphor

    ***

    Not heard of that being proposed

    Working on it

    If if if we really really really get desperate guess it will be time to ask the mob

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    But but but without this they have nothing...would you be impressed if they all held hands all declared they were full of the holy spirit?

    Well I say take the "survey" in the middle of China and if they come up with no God I will say it has worked and accept that answer.☺

    I like eggs..those little black ones from fish.
    Well that is the idea of the theory of inflation as I understand the matter...but maybe someone will come forward and point out that I am wrong...dont laugh even I could be wrong☺ but I am pretty sure although I use a ruff account the inflation theory says that there was a very very very short period where the universe inflated from the size of a grape fruit...or maybe bigger..the size of basket ball...but relatively small to the size of at least the observable universe and after this initial inflation slowed touch the rate of , now called, expansion...
    Maybe inflation is some sort of place holder but it seems folk who are interested are more keen on frveloping many many variations of the theory to the point where critism has been made that the efforts are no longer science.
    Further a little tell tale is there has never been a Noble Prize given for any work in this area...now you could think given that the theory is such an important part of the Big Bang Theory...critical to its survival that you could expect a prize...but the growth rate seems wildly unrealistic and with no evidence I think it deserves critism even from a mug like me...I mean can you buy that idea?
    Well let me know how you go.
    Well its like the mob mentality is at play as far as inflation is concerned...in my view no one has questioned it.... so Guth says I have an idea to fix the problems...the Universe went thru an initual expansion where it went from grape fruit to all we can observe in a zilliomth etc etc of a second...mob...sure that sounds good lets go with that...what about evidence...yes what about evidence? Who else is happy to proceed with no evidence...I certainly see the connection...where did the energy come from for this inflation? Mmm dont know...what happened to it after inflation turned to expansion...mmm dont know.
    Its not science.
    I have a push gravity idea requiring particles creating pressure...so what are these particles...I dont know...thats not science get out off here...and I agree.
    Inflation does not seem like science to me.

    And so this inflation thing smacks of mob mentality.

    The real problem seems ti be there are many folk making a living from inflation such that really it can not be called science ...in the view of others more critical than me...I should find you a link...but you are probably as interested as me which for me is very little...catholic priest and pagan creation myths just hold us back...however someone should seize the oppertunity to present unreligious cosmology.

    I am developing a scrambled cosmic egg cosmology which starts with a flat universe☺ and revamping the tired light idea to light that has been through a lot and stretched to breaking point ☺

    Alex
     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    The inflation goes thru its hoops to explain why the universe is flat within the context of a big bang...
    In a steady state all you could ever expect to observe is a flat universe...which one will the razor cut down when explaining flatness?
    Alex
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Probably wont be around for a while may be going to hospital for a while.

    I had hoped Paddoboy could have bounced off my posts to lay down a little education for the onlookers with me acting as devils advocate but that cant work as probably neither of us will be here.

    Alex
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,938
    http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2011/Kuo_072511.pdf
    Not true.....The BB model is and was our best model before Inflation was hypothesised to fix up some problems, such as the horizon and flatness problems. Problems don't necessarilly invalidate a theory that has loads of other evidence supporting it...it means that they are simply to be ironed out. Again no model yet explains what the BB has, despite the need of Inflation.
    https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html
    SR tells us that as a body obtains speed, it also gets heavier until at "c" its weight is infinite, which is why "c " can never be obtained by anything with mass...photons have zero rest mass...
    https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html
    The facts are that "c" is the Universal speed limit only applies to two objects relative to one another, at the same point at the same time.
    Inflation explains much, but like the BB itself, is always open to any observational errors or new data.

    You seem preoccupied that LaMaitre was a priest...He was also a scientist, and whatever model of universal evolution was to be the accepted model, there was always going to be a door open for creationists and their ilk.
    The universe basically arose from "NOTHING" but try getting those preoccupied with creation to accept that. The problem exists with what one determines or defines nothing as.........Perhaps this "nothing" is actually the quantum foam from whence spacetime and the universe evolved...we don't as yet really know, but hey! here's an interesting article.....
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/
    A Universe from Nothing:
    by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
    In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

    The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

    What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

    Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

    Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

    If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  16. river

    Messages:
    12,213
    So let me get this straight , the Universe is from nothing because matter magnetic field are balanced ?

    Yet both protons and electrons are needed to exist in the first place
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,938
    Here's another account of Inflation.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b_2123732.html

    And here is a rather lengthy video of Professor Lawrence Krauss, introduced by Richard Dawkins ....

    excellent!
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  18. river

    Messages:
    12,213
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,547
    Like it

    Don't really understand it (understand the concept - hassling with the implementation)

    Still sounds better than Sky Daddy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Best wishes

    Worked in them for 40 years. Good places to stay away from

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. river

    Messages:
    12,213
    Alex

    Why are you in Hospital ?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,938
    As the article says, while still speculative at this stage, it makes a lot of sense...Listen to the 1 hr video from Professor Krauss...good stuff and he uses real down to earth language, even the "magic word" on one occasion.

    The last time I spent in Hospital [a few years ago now] removal of a Polyp in my bowel, I told them that if they didn't let me go home, I turn into the Hulk. Didn't make any difference!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Best wishes also Alex, and good work in dragging me back if only on this thread!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. river

    Messages:
    12,213
    Now where does this " tiny bit of energy " come from ? pad .
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I am not in hospital at the moment...had some minor surgery to take a cancer off my ear and one off my leg...he took a big piece outta my ear and I thought blood had got in the ear drum and thought I may be back in cause I was feeling crook and I thought I had a bad infection but that has passed and I am thinking clearly so I think the worst has passed.

    The pain has eased but I am eating painkillers like lollies☺. I am not used to them but they seem to work.

    Next week I will go in for a sex change so I can get the widows pension☺

    Thanks for asking but I feel so much better now..I have had a good sleep since my last post and when I woke up I decided I would be ok and gave it a miss.
    Alex
     

Share This Page