442 replies to this topic

[Antonio2014]

Talking about cosmology with religious people is like talking about neurosurgery with a dog.

[shadowhawk]

This cosmos has a beginning .

 

[shadowhawk]

Talking about cosmology with religious people is like talking about neurosurgery with a dog.

 

Don't bark
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 February 2015 - 10:47 PM.

[serp777]

This cosmos has a beginning .

 

 

So when WMAP provides evidence for eternal inflation, you ignore it, but then you use a picture that includes WMAP for fudges sake. In eternal inflation you have universes that begin all the time. Read my previous post about evidence for eternal inflation.

Edited by serp777, 17 February 2015 - 10:47 PM.

[shadowhawk]

There is no evidence for "eternal," inflation.

[serp777]

There is no evidence for "eternal," inflation.

 

haha you're so childish. How does anyone take you seriously?

 

 

The multiverse does answer partially why there is something rather than nothing. Inflation expands infinitely, meaning that there is an infinite amount of nothingness in which multiverses are popping into existence. And there is evidence for multiverse inflation

 

"

In many models of inflation, the inflationary phase of the Universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the Universe. This occurs because inflating regions expand very rapidly, reproducing themselves. Unless the rate of decay to the non-inflating phase is sufficiently fast, new inflating regions are produced more rapidly than non-inflating regions. In such models most of the volume of the Universe at any given time is inflating. All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal.

Although new inflation is classically rolling down the potential, quantum fluctuations can sometimes bring it back up to previous levels. These regions in which the inflaton fluctuates upwards expand much faster than regions in which the inflaton has a lower potential energy, and tend to dominate in terms of physical volume. This steady state, which first developed by Vilenkin,^[90] is called "eternal inflation". It has been shown that any inflationary theory with an unbounded potential is eternal.^{[91][not in citation given]} It is a popular conclusion among physicists that this steady state cannot continue forever into the past.^[92][93][94] The inflationary spacetime, which is similar to de Sitter space, is incomplete without a contracting region. However, unlike de Sitter space, fluctuations in a contracting inflationary space will collapse to form a gravitational singularity, a point where densities become infinite. Therefore, it is necessary to have a theory for the Universe's initial conditions. Linde, however, believes inflation may be past eternal.^[95]

In eternal inflation, regions with inflation have an exponentially growing volume, while regions that are not inflating don't. This suggests that the volume of the inflating part of the Universe in the global picture is always unimaginably larger than the part that has stopped inflating, even though inflation eventually ends as seen by any single pre-inflationary observer. Scientists disagree about how to assign a probability distribution to this hypothetical anthropic landscape. If the probability of different regions is counted by volume, one should expect that inflation will never end, or applying boundary conditions that a local observer exists to observe it, that inflation will end as late as possible. Some physicists believe this paradox can be resolved by weighting observers by their pre-inflationary volume."

 

In effect, many good models that describe the universe from the big bang imply infinite inflation, which implies an infinite multiverse. It also has explanatory power for why our universe has certain arbitrary values, which could have had a variety of values that produced approximately the same outcome. And more evidence:

 

"

Evidence from the fluctuation level in our universe

New inflation does not produce a perfectly symmetric universe; tiny quantum fluctuations in the inflaton are created. These tiny fluctuations form the primordial seeds for all structure created in the later universe. These fluctuations were first calculated by Viatcheslav Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov in the Soviet Union in analyzing Starobinsky's similar model.^[15][16][17] In the context of inflation, they were worked out independently of the work of Mukhanov and Chibisov at the three-week 1982 Nuffield Workshop on the Very Early Universe at Cambridge University.^[18] The fluctuations were calculated by four groups working separately over the course of the workshop: Stephen Hawking;^[19] Starobinsky;^[20] Guth and So-Young Pi;^[21] and James M. Bardeen, Paul Steinhardt and Michael Turner.^[22]

The fact that these models are consistent with WMAP data adds weight to the idea that the Universe could be created in such a way. As a result, many physicists in the field agree it is possible, but needs further support to be accepted.^[23]"

^{http://en.wikipedia....ernal_inflation}

 

Observational studies from WMAP confirm that observations align with calculations which use eternal inflation as a basis

[shadowhawk]

No matter a single or multiverse, they both had a beginning.









 

[serp777]

No matter a single or multiverse, they both had a beginning.









 

 

No, do you understand what eternal inflation means? There is no time with eternal inflation.

 

by that logic God had a beginning.

 

And even if God exists, its possible the multiverse could have come into existence at the same point God did--they exist simultaneously. It doesn't have to be the case that either God exists and created the multiverse, or he didn't. God could exist and not have created the multiverse.
 

[Cris Barrows]

 

 

Time is part of the Space/Time something.  It was created.

 

​The presentation "beyond the BB" is an argument for a necessary beginning. The conclusion that therefore a god was the cause is the classic logical fallacy "argument from ignorance". The absence of an explanation does not provide any valid evidence for any particular imaginative speculation. 

 

If it is true there was a beginning the best we can say is that we don't know the cause. The argument presented does not offer any evidence that a god must be the cause. An equally valid speculation could simply be "magic happened", or any number of imaginative fantasies we could invent. Neither does it follow that the beginning was the result of an intelligence since the initial state appears to have simply needed a trigger and the inflation and expansion did the rest. If something metaphysical exists then it could just as easily have been entirely dumb and triggered the beginning accidentally. Intent and purpose are not necessary implications of a beginning. 

 

Not a logical fallacy at all.  All I said is something with certain characteristics would be necessary to bring the cosmos we see into existence.  I did not argue what it was.  As for intelligence, that is all around us and in us.  Not so hard to grasp as beinng real.

 

Understood, but I was referring to the Craig presentation video.

[shadowhawk]

 

No matter a single or multiverse, they both had a beginning.









 

 

No, do you understand what eternal inflation means? There is no time with eternal inflation.

 

by that logic God had a beginning.

 

And even if God exists, its possible the multiverse could have come into existence at the same point God did--they exist simultaneously. It doesn't have to be the case that either God exists and created the multiverse, or he didn't. God could exist and not have created the multiverse.
 

 

Well we finally agree on one thing but not on "eternal," inflation which was the point of my post. 

[shadowhawk]

The Big Bang

 

http://intelligentde...T16_10_56-08_00

 

 

 

[Antonio2014]

 

The multiverse does answer partially why there is something rather than nothing. Inflation expands infinitely, meaning that there is an infinite amount of nothingness in which multiverses are popping into existence. And there is evidence for multiverse inflation
 

[...]

 

Observational studies from WMAP confirm that observations align with calculations which use eternal inflation as a basis

 

The BICEP2 data suggested the existence of primordial gravitational waves due to eternal inflation, but the last Planck data doesn't confirm that and attributes most of the signal observed by BICEP2 to galactic dust: http://francis.nauka...del-multiverso/(the article is in Spanish, but most references are in English).

 

About WMAP and the multiverse... I'm afraid you were misled by a bad article by BBC News: http://www.math.colu...rdpress/?p=3879 (but most of the fault is of the university press release).

Edited by Antonio2014, 18 February 2015 - 08:28 AM.

[brianjakub]

De Sitter space
Watch this page
In mathematics and physics, a de Sitter space is the analog in Minkowski space, or spacetime, of a sphere in ordinary, Euclidean space. The n-dimensional de Sitter space, denoted dSn, is the Lorentzian manifold analog of an n-sphere (with its canonical Riemannian metric); it is maximally symmetric, has constant positive curvature, and is simply connected for n at least 3. The de Sitter space, as well as the anti-de Sitter space is named after Willem de Sitter (1872–1934), professor of astronomy at Leiden University and director of the Leiden Observatory. Willem de Sitter and Albert Einstein worked in the 1920s in Leiden closely together on the spacetime structure of our universe.

In the language of general relativity, de Sitter space is the maximally symmetric, vacuum solution of Einstein's field equations with a positive (repulsive) cosmological constant \Lambda (corresponding to a positive vacuum energy density and negative pressure). When n = 4 (3 space dimensions plus time), it is a cosmological model for the physical universe; see de Sitter universe.

De Sitter space was discovered by Willem de Sitter, and, at the same time, independently by Tullio Levi-Civita.

More recently it has been considered as the setting for special relativity rather than using Minkowski space, since a group contraction reduces the isometry group of de Sitter space to the Poincaré group, allowing a unification of the spacetime translation subgroup and Lorentz transformation subgroup of the Poincaré group into a simple group rather than a semi-simple group. This alternate formulation of special relativity is called de Sitter relativity.

We are talking about something out of nothing like it is as easy as flipping a coin. De Sitter Space has a positive(repulsive) cosmological constant, with vacuum energy density and pressure. These words and the corresponding math are describing physical properties of space. Does that mean that even when serp 777 is talking about the nothing that something spontaneously bubbles out of, it is really something? Does nothing of spacetime have enough order and structure to allow for the terms vaccuum energy density and pressure to be used. If yes, what do you think it looks like? (I am using the term "looks" loosely, I know we can't see it.) If no, what is this math and the corresponding wmap observations, describing?

[brianjakub]

I think "something" either implies someone wanted "something" to exist rather than "nothing" to exist so everything could exist in "something", and that someone had to decide the "why" before the something we live in came to be.

 

Or, there is no someone that wanted "something", everyone should get to decide what the "why" is for themselves, and we should take a poll of everyone's version of "why" and call the top vote getter TRUTH.  We should take the poll yearly though so we can keep track of the TRUTH.  With the advent of the internet, maybe we could take the poll more often, to better track the TRUTH.      

[platypus]

It is entirely possible that there was something before the Big Bang, so it is not necessarily a beginning. 

[cats_lover]

It is entirely possible that there was something before the Big Bang, so it is not necessarily a beginning. 

 

Im agree, Big Bang is as far as human understanding of the origins of reality reached; but this could be an intermediate state (not the beginning of the universe).

Another possibility is that the big bang theory is incorrect and inflation is a local and not an universal phenomena... after all we develop the big bang theory based on inflation and as we can see in the universe we can measure inflation, but we can only see a very little percentage of universe...
 

[shadowhawk]

It is entirely possible that there was something before the Big Bang, so it is not necessarily a beginning. 

 

Yes, God was before the big bang.  What would something have to be like to cause the big bang?

[brianjakub]

The initial question is, "why is there something?" not when, how or what.  I propose it is to provide a material existence for individual consciences to exist in so they can ask that very question, and compare ideas.  Without a physical existence for our consciences to exist in, and a physical universe for us to manifest our ideas in, we couldn't tell the difference between each others ideas.  For example my idea of, "I want to sit in this chair" and someone else's idea, "I want to sit in the same chair at the same time" would be meaningless and require no communication of ideas if something (including the people and the chair) didn't exist.  If this is why there is something, then my question is does that "why" imply a purpose for the something we exist in and are part of?  Do the proposed answers "yes, there is a purpose", and "no, there is no purpose" have equal validity?  

 

 

[platypus]

It's entirely possible that the big bang was preceded by a previous universe. 

[shadowhawk]

The initial question is, "why is there something?" not when, how or what.  I propose it is to provide a material existence for individual consciences to exist in so they can ask that very question, and compare ideas.  Without a physical existence for our consciences to exist in, and a physical universe for us to manifest our ideas in, we couldn't tell the difference between each others ideas.  For example my idea of, "I want to sit in this chair" and someone else's idea, "I want to sit in the same chair at the same time" would be meaningless and require no communication of ideas if something (including the people and the chair) didn't exist.  If this is why there is something, then my question is does that "why" imply a purpose for the something we exist in and are part of?  Do the proposed answers "yes, there is a purpose", and "no, there is no purpose" have equal validity?  

Good point.  We can talk about "when," or "what,"  but the question is why?  Your framing of the issues is excellent.

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 February 2015 - 08:06 PM.

[platypus]

I don't think the why-question has an answer we can find and verify. 

[shadowhawk]

OK then you may want to start another topic.  This question is about "why."  I am sure tou could also get a lot of conjecture on when.

[brianjakub]

I don't think the why-question has an answer we can find and verify. 

You live in the universe.  Why did you continue living in it today?  Maybe we can reach a consensus on why.

[cats_lover]

It's entirely possible that the big bang was preceded by a previous universe. 

 

And what is the origen of the previous one?
 

[platypus]

 

It's entirely possible that the big bang was preceded by a previous universe. 

 

And what is the origen of the previous one?
 

 

Always been there slash unknown? 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

It's entirely possible that the big bang was preceded by a previous universe. 

 

And what is the origen of the previous one?
 

 

Always been there slash unknown? 

 

But any universe we know of is experiencing entropy.

[brianjakub]

Platypus, could we just talk about this universe and what you know for sure right now? Why do you think you are here, why do you think there is something?

[platypus]

 

 

 

It's entirely possible that the big bang was preceded by a previous universe. 

 

And what is the origen of the previous one?
 

 

Always been there slash unknown? 

 

But any universe we know of is experiencing entropy.

 

That's not a problem, I'm sure the combination of a Big Crunch and the following Big Bang resets things nicely. 

Platypus, could we just talk about this universe and what you know for sure right now? Why do you think you are here, why do you think there is something?

I don't know but I'm pretty sure I do not have big significance in the celestial scale. Also, it matter little what I think

[shadowhawk]

There is no evidence of a big crunch.  In fact the Cosmos is expanding more rapidly.

[brianjakub]

 

 

 

 

It's entirely possible that the big bang was preceded by a previous universe. 

 

And what is the origen of the previous one?
 

 

Always been there slash unknown? 

 

But any universe we know of is experiencing entropy.

 

That's not a problem, I'm sure the combination of a Big Crunch and the following Big Bang resets things nicely. 

Platypus, could we just talk about this universe and what you know for sure right now? Why do you think you are here, why do you think there is something?

I don't know but I'm pretty sure I do not have big significance in the celestial scale. Also, it matter little what I think

 

Well, Platypus I disagree with you.  I think you are very significant, and I do care what you think, that's why I asked.  Humans, are the only creatures on Earth, that I think can fully comprehend this question, I think each one of us answers this question every day, when we decide to get out of bed and live, instead of putting a gun to our head (which is a choice I don't think animals can make).  I for one, am thankful Platypus, you chose to get up and live.  So, why did you?  I did because I love life. (or usually, and then hang in there until I do again)