The concept of inflation was constructed specifically to solve the problems associated with the Big Bang model. A result of this construction is that inflation cannot be tested, and as such it cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Inflation is therefore not a proper theory, and some researchers consider the whole idea to be a pipe dream.

http://astro.wsu.edu/allen/courses/astr135/Notes/cosmology.html

I wrote a paper on this but unfortunately I left the paper before coming home for Thanksgiving and I don't remember my sources.

Can anyone tell me how the inflationary model is supported by the scientific method?

I vote inflation down the toilet because it is unscientific. Not one shred of it seems unarbitrary. As to the topic title, if the inflation model is a "pipe dream", then the big bang theory falls apart too.

Hum,
I know what you mean.
But that link you gave basically gave three good reasons why we `made up` that theory:
Monopoles, the flaws in space-time have to be got rid of (there were to many produced , and we don`t see any today),
The horizon problem,
The flatness problem,

And as Andrei Linde, one of the leading experts in inflation, once said
"<b>Inflation hasn't won the race, but so far it's the only horse.</b>"

(Edit - er, excluding colliding membrane theory, see link at bottom)

Perhaps after we discover more about the higgs boson or learn more about dark matter/energy then we may be able to get direct evidence (for or against) of the mechanism of inflation.

[ <i> I suppose that perhaps the scalar inflationary field is needed to create dark matter in the first place. It maybe that the energy of the inflation would decay into stable particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) and other fields (electromagnetic, etc), or `exotic` particles that make up darkmatter. </i> ]

I also imagine that the new theories of superstrings/membranes will also contribute to that `search`.

Check out this weird site (BEFORE THE BIG BANG)
http://willmar.ridgewater.mnscu.edu/library/508352.htm

The question is, why is it at all entertained by science if it is actually unscientific?

Will take a look at the site when I get back, have to go make sure the big dinner is coming along fine. ;)

Yeh, the inflation model is needed for the BB theory but falls short, I mean it's suppose to have lasted 10^-24s and expanded the universe (radius) from like 10^-50/60cm to 1cm. This comes to an expansion rate of ~ (3.33^12)c - thats pretty rapid expansion, and I can't see how its possible, but I'm still open to suggestions.

On why its still entertained by the scientific community, without it, the BB theory has too many problems and would perhaps have to be discarded, but they have a lot invested in it and I'm not sure what theory they'd choose or create instead - maybe there needs to be another copernicus/kepler to come along and radically change our thinking.

but at the mo, I prefer Newton's approach - "I feign no hypotheses" :)

Bottom line: there is currently no viable alternative to the big bang theory which has the same explanatory power, and which is supported by such a wealth of evidence.

Many aspects of the theory are highly constrained by observation, in contrast to the claim in the first post that the theory is ad hoc and arbitrary.

Depends on how you define "viable". There are certainly alternative theories. I have books that descibe 4. The 2 I like best are The Plasma Theory and Hoyles Modified Steady State Theory. But the Big Bang Gang wont take their blinkers off long enough to study them thouroly and give them a chance. There is an old saying among scientists "if you have to choose between simple and complicated, simple is usually right". And the BBT including inflation and all the other amendments that has been added over the years, is about the most convoluted, complicated, artificial, ilogical theory ever devised by mankind. If I was a scientist with enough prestige to get puplished in Nature, I would write the following statement. "I'm sorry folks, but we just dont know what the hell is going on out there (in the universe) or where it came from. But we are trying our best to figure it out. Ask us again in annother 10 years, and we may or may not have the answer".

REGARDS APOLO

Have you considered that maybe Plasma theory and Hoyle have been rejected because they don't fit the evidence?

Ah, poor old Fred. Science needed people like Fred Hoyle, to challenge things, in a scientific manner.

His theories were entertaining, but he had a hard time explaining away the CMB, for instance.

The Big Bang is a simple explanation anyway. There are more questions pertaining to a steady state Universe, like, how it came into being? Where did the matter come come from? Hoyle proposed 'continuous creation' to explain away some facts that didn't fit his theory. That said, surely he shot the 'steady state' theory in the foot, as if matter was able to be created spontaneously in his model, he validated the concept of a 'bang', so all we're left debating is the size. Well, a finite amount of matter just _is_, so a bang, whatever size, could give rise to a whole Universe.

Apologies if I've stitched two of Hoyles theories together, it's been at least a decade since I read them last.

"I'm sorry folks, but we just dont know what the hell is going on out there (in the universe) or where it came from. But we are trying our best to figure it out. Ask us again in annother 10 years, and we may or may not have the answer".
What utter, blinkered, unsubstantiated clap trap!.... Wait a moment, I see the problem. You've put an extra 'n' in another and missed out one of the zero's from 100. It should read 'Ask again in another 100 years.' Couldn't agree with you more if I tried.

Bottom line: there is currently no viable alternative to the big bang theory which has the same explanatory power, and which is supported by such a wealth of evidence.

Many aspects of the theory are highly constrained by observation, in contrast to the claim in the first post that the theory is ad hoc and arbitrary.

It is not the big bang theory itself which I bring into question, but the inflationary theory which attempts to "patch" the original model's shortcomings. And if the inflationary theory is unscientific, then it only follows that the big bang theory is still flawed.

Have you considered that maybe Plasma theory and Hoyle have been rejected because they don't fit the evidence?

The point of this thread is that the inflationary model doesn't "fit the evidence" either.

@§outh§tar
Hum,
and that evidence is?
As far as I am aware the latest inflationary theory `tweak` implies a two stage expansion phase (to get it to fit observational data), but I’m not aware of anything that would question the actual theory itself.

if that were the case then it’s a case of throwing away (or tweaking) that theory.

BTW, did you read that link, about the membranes creating a universe without the need of an inflationary phase? - (it happened everywhere at once, type thing)

@§outh§tar
Hum,
and that evidence is?

That is my point exactly. Zilch. How at all does this even come close to the scientific method?

As far as I am aware the latest inflationary theory `tweak` implies a two stage expansion phase (to get it to fit observational data), but I’m not aware of anything that would question the actual theory itself.

Yes, I read about that. But what exactly is the speculation based on for us to know it is scientific?

BTW, did you read that link, about the membranes creating a universe without the need of an inflationary phase? - (it happened everywhere at once, type thing)

I read it now and I must say it makes me feel very small!

The problem is however the same as the one I pointed out with inflation - cannot be subjected to the scientific method and is therefore not "viable" within any scientific realm. Also if anyone could tell me what evidence prompted the theory that we are a "small cross-section" of a grander universe?


Alan Guth (founding father of inflationary theory) is cited in the article, "I don't think Paul and Neil come close to proving their case;"

Ironically enough, he hasn't proven his either. We wait for the Pope to make the final decision. ;)

Hum,
crossed wires
(never cross the beams)
All the evidence we have is all for the theory.
There hasn’t been anything that we have observed yet that conflict with it.

Perhaps your confusing `proof` with theory.
We theorise that Pluto is cold, but it’s only a theory base on spectral emissions etc. No one knows for sure. No one has gone there with a thermometer to check.

Anyway, the COBE satellite data agrees with the inflation theory.
The Universe's expansion is isotropic--the same in every direction. That was what was predicted, that was what we observed.
It’s not proof, but it good evidence.

There have been searches made for magnetic monopoles, none have been found.
If we started to find them then the theory is wrong.

And to answer the two stage inflationary period question; we had to sort out the problem that today we see that the mass density of the universe is still very close to the critical density ( first inflationary era). In addition, that the vacuum is very full of energy. Therefore, we are presently in another secondary inflationary expansion phase.
We would observe the Universe to be increasing its expansion over time. In addition, this is precisely the phenomena that observed by astronomers.

However, it is a bit too technical to get into here,
More here though.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0408/0408084.pdf

But by observing distant supernovas we see that they are 20% dimmer than expected for a constant expansion, hence, the Universe is not constantly expanding.

This is not proof, but I for one am sticking with the theory, even if it isn’t scientific. ;)

Hm, So the universe is isotropic. I dont beleive that for a minute. I's true that in our neighbourhood THe galaxies appear to be distributed evenly all around us. But when you get out to a distance of 10 to 14 billion light years things get pretty lumpy, there are galaxy clusters containing millions of galaxies (the great wall f.ex.) seperated by many light years of emty space.
Some one said Hoyle could'nt explain where all the stuff in the universe came from, and how it got started. Easy, it did'nt come from anywhere, it was always there.Just extend the arrows of time backwards and forward infinitely.You have got to think outside the box. And dont be constrained by small mind thinking, e.i. everything has to have a beginning.
B T W Hoyle did not postulate continues creation out of nothing (it seems the BBT does though) he uses Einsteins principle that energy is the same as mass. Mass can be converted to energy- radiation- and energy can be converted to mass. So he reasons that as the stars convert their mass in to radiation, that radiation eventually coaless back in to mass e.i. atoms, those atoms become part of the inter stelar gas and dust clouds that sooner or later contract and become new stars. So the universe continually recycles itself. Nothing lost, nothing gained. It has been estimated that it only takes creation of one atom (out of the radiated energy) pr cubic mile every 10 years to keep the universe going.
And please dont dig up that old argument that Hoyle can't explain the microwave background radiation. Easy, it is simply the natural inter stelar background temperature of the universe, and it was predicted by several scientists long before Penzias and Wilson got the idea it came from the BB.
BTW I would like some of the big bangers to show me what proof or evidence they have that the radiation is actualy coming from the BB. I dont beleive it can be done.
REGARDS APOLO

Hum,
The Wmap probe looked back to about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, and found it was isotropic...
(of course only to a certain extent, er , otherwise there would be no clumps of matter)

Anyway to work out the 3k we see today we just work backwards...

A that time (300,000 years old) the temperature of the Universe (lets say, 3000k) had dropped sufficiently for electrons and protons to combine into hydrogen atoms, <b>p + e --> H</b>.
From that time onwards, radiation was effectively unable to interact with the background gas; it has propagated freely ever since, while constantly losing energy because its <b>wavelength is stretched</b> by the expansion (hubbles constant) of the Universe.

You can switch on your TV and `detune it` the static you detect is the radiation of the Universe at a very early stage on what is known as the `surface of last scattering'. (At this early phase of the universe ordinary matter consisted of hot plasma of nuclei and electrons. The free electrons made the plasma opaque; a photon of radiation could not have travelled far before being scattered.)
However, once the universe cooled to approximately 3000 K, the electrons did not have enough energy to escape the pull of the nuclei, and atoms were created. This EVENT is known as <i>recombination</i>…(we can do experiments in labs on the earth to verify that electrons/plasma behave like this.)
Photons in the cosmic microwave background have been travelling towards us for over ten billion years, and have covered a distance of about a million billion billion miles. These are the photons at the surface of last scattering make up the Cosmic Background Radiation.
Their energy has been red-shifted to the microwave wavelength to only 3K.
At some point before or near recombination, the matter density and the energy density were equally important. This is the epoch in which large-scale structure formation began. Large-scale structure formation could not have begun earlier, during the <b>GUT epoch</b>, because of the tight coupling between radiation and matter stopping the density perturbations from forming. Once matter and radiation were separated, density perturbations could evolve on their own. The most over dense areas collapsed gravitationally, forming galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Less dense areas formed voids, the large lessdense areas we see in the sky today.

Some one said Hoyle could'nt explain where all the stuff in the universe came from, and how it got started. Easy, it did'nt come from anywhere, it was always there.Just extend the arrows of time backwards and forward infinitely.You have got to think outside the box. And dont be constrained by small mind thinking, e.i. everything has to have a beginning.Couldn't have said it better myself.

Hum,
2 + 2 = 5
thinking outside the box, still makes it wrong.

Hoyle's theory was discarded because it was not as `good` a theory as the big bang theory at answering /matching up with what we observe.

That’s how science works.

I think that apolo's point was not the nature of the "begining" of the universe, but the need for a begining.

Ahh,
Yes, that true.
The big-bang is sometimes regarded / mistaken as a beginning point for the universe. That’s because the laws of physics, or the mathematical tools that we use just break down at a singularity. And while it maybe true that our conventional 3d space and time were `created` then, that still leave the door open for newer theories , (like that membrane theory - see other post) to look beyond the point when Time =0…

It sounds strange i know;

It`s a bit like when water is `created` from ice.

Theories that require additional theories for support leave me empty. I've found that often the simplest answer to a problem is frequently the best.

I question whether or not there even had to be a "begining" to be explained. The Big Bang even requires a "something" prior to the event. This parallels the question in the biblical creation senario of, "Where did god come from?" The simple answer is that he was always there.

Why not apply the same reasoning to the question of the origin of the universe? Maybe, just maybe, the universe has always been here. Maybe space is infinite in dimension. Maybe matter has always been here and simply reorganizes itself throughout space as it does on Earth through the process of growth and decay. Maybe matter and space are only different sides of a single coin.

To me, this is a simple approach with considerable appeal to logic. No exotic theories are required, only an investigation as to the duality of space/matter, and that can be investigated and directly observed.

Hum,
Using the same reasoning like these?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103239

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

The first link I gave though was a bit more revealing…

Michio Kaku? ...a joke of course.

...and then...

The Ekpyrotic Universe:Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang

We propose a cosmological scenario in which the hot big bang universe is produced by the collision of a brane in the bulk space with a bounding orbifold plane, beginning from an otherwise cold, vacuous, static universe. The model addresses the cosmological horizon, flatness and monopole problems and generates a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations without invoking superluminal expansion (inflation). The scenario relies, instead, on physical phenomena that arise naturally in theories based on extra dimensions and branes. As an example, we present our scenario predominantly within the context of heterotic M-theory. A prediction that distinguishes this scenario from standard inflationary cosmology is a strongly blue gravitational wave spectrum, which has consequences for microwave background polarization experiments and gravitational wave detectors....written for your congressman to read...the minds of government sponsored researchers must never settle on an agreed upon theory lest the research money dry up. The mental inventions must march on!

As a retired Federal employee who has dealt with budget matters, I'm familiar with these games. A theory that can never be proved should never be acceptable; not from religious writings or from think-tanks or from the halls of our most prestigious schools.

Sometimes, I think that we have lost 400 years of reasoning ability. Not the science, but the ability to apply logic and reason.

>>>>A theory that can never be proved should never be acceptable.....

that wont leave many theories then.

:-)

The question is, why is it at all entertained by science if it is actually unscientific?

We have no evidence for anything related to the beginning of the universe - if there is one.

And, in fact, we are likely never have, because it is all a huge paradox... :rolleyes:

Thanks Blobrana (I hope I spelled that right) For giving me a condensed version Of the BBT. I have read that before in several books and many magezines, and I still dont beleive it, because it does'nt contain anything that I would call evidence. It is just a hypothesis. Some one looked in a telescope and said; the universe appears to be expanding ( I put emphasis on the word appears ) so if we run the movie backwards it must have been together in one spot (a singularity) about 15 billion years ago. So eureca we have a big bang theory. Some one could with equal logic say; maybe if we only run the movie halfway back, then we could postulate a pulsating universe that will soon reverse itself and go back to the halfway point again. This hypothesis of cource cannot be proven. But neither can the BBT. As a matter of fact the second "theory" have the advantage that it does'nt have to explain what caused a singularity to blow up and create all the stuff in the universe we see today out of virtually nothing. As a matter of fact Hoyle's modified theory allowes for a apulsating universe.(See "A Different Approach to Cosmology" by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. Cambridge university press.

I find the Steady State theory not only simpler, but also much more beautiful than the BBT. I beleive it was Brian Greene in his book "The Elegant universe" who said; a good theory must have beauty. He used that word at least 20 times. Compare that to the ugliness of the BBT with all it's amendments and add ons
REGARDS APOLO

I just scroled back and read Marv's post (today/04)
"We have lost 400 years of reasonig ability. Not the science, but the ability to apply logic and reason".

I could'nt have said it better if I tried.

REGARDS APOLO

how does the steady state theory explain the cmbr?

The proper criterion would be "A theory which can never be falsified should never be acceptable."

Apolo
Re: movie halfway back

?? When we look, observe, distant supernovas or quasars, we see them as they were in the past, not as they appear now…
(Its a near enough linear case of distance = time in past)
There is no evidence to prove that the Hubble constant somehow stops working at an arbitrary period in the past.
We see different galaxies as they were to almost 13 billion years in the past; there isn’t a sudden threshold, where we see blue shifted galaxies, or galaxies that appear older than the observable universe.
Therefore, if you still want to apply a pulsating theory (which is basically, what the colliding membrane theory is) to the universe, then it would have to occur before the surface of last scattering. (The point at which we can’t see past) …
Then you would have to create explanations/mechanism for the contraction of a universe (one that we have evidence to show that it is expanding , and accelerating )

>>>>A theory that can never be proved should never be acceptable.....

that wont leave many theories then.

:-)The operative word in my statement was "never". There are many theories that, through investigation and test, will hold up. And there are some that won't.

But some theories simply cannot be tested. The religious theory of a paradise in an afterlife, or the scientific theory of a Big Bang can never be tested. Nevertheless, a muslim will yearn for his seventy-two virgins, and a physicist will want his Federal research grant to continue. That's my 2¢.

Hum,
Reminds me of the assumption that the neutrino would never be confirmed when it was first postulated.

The large particle accelerators and observatories around the world are producing data that can be checked with the current models of the universe that we have. I’m sure that if they did find something (they might) that truly toppled the bb theory then it would make headline news.

Proving?

“Scientific research involves validating theoretical models and modifying theories. Further articulation of a theory results from the testing of research hypotheses against data and developing new explanations for observed results. The adjustment of a model occurs with a shift of theory resulting in a new theory replacing an old one, e.g., Darwinism replaced by the synthetic theory of evolution.”
Extract from http://www.bibarch.com/concepts/index_home.html

Reading back over all the previous posts, I realise that I owe an apology To Ophiolite that I spelled 'anually' with a double n. Well you see Ophiolite, I'm a retired engineer, not an enlish teacher. And engineers are notoriously bad spellers. (That's why we have secretaries and asistants to clean up the stuff we write, and ocationaly what we draw). My general rule is. that if I'm in doubt about single or double letter, I always go double. 80 % of the time I'm right. I love the english language. It is a beautiful language for explaining scientific thoughts as well as poetry. Of the 4 languages I speak, english is definitely my favorite, even though it is the most difficult one to spell. But I promise, no more double n in anually (even though Webster has it as annually)
REGARDS APOLO

P>S> to Boris. How does Hoyle explain the CMB? Scrol back a few of my posts, and you will find the answer.

P>PS> to the above post.
Sorry Ophiolite, I now realise the word was 'another' not annually.
REGARS APOLO

Apolo, Semtmeios it's eisear jsut to mix leretts up. It's siltl rebablae. Huh? :D

marv:

Maybe, just maybe, the universe has always been here.

Why is it expanding?

Maybe he meant it expands and retracts.

There is as much evidence for that as there is for inflation probably.

Why is it expanding?The BB is still just a theory. Why should it be the only theory?

The BB is still just a theory.

So is the theory that everything is made of atoms. All useful scientific statements are "just theories".

apollo, didn't hoyle add bits to his sst to accommodate the cmbr?

Some one said Hoyle could'nt explain where all the stuff in the universe came from, and how it got started. Easy, it did'nt come from anywhere, it was always there.Just extend the arrows of time backwards and forward infinitely.You have got to think outside the box.


Ah, boxes, what an interesting idea.

Ok, if the Universe is infinitely old, is it also infinitely large? See, a Universe which doesn't have a finite size, or finite amount of matter/energy in it poses problems, doesn't it? And a finite sized Universe, that didn't have a beginning, well, thah begs the question, what constrains the Universe?

So, let's examine these possibilities. There was no big bang, the Universe and everything in it has always been there, and we can 'extend the arrows of time infinitely backwards'.

Hmm, so in this inifinite time, how come the Universe hasn't suffered 'heat death'? If energy moves, and coalesces back into matter, why hasn't it spread out evenly, and become infinitely diluted? Or isn't the Universe infinite, and if not, what constrains it? What's 'the box'? So, the universe must be infinitely large?

Does it also, therefore, contain an infinite amount of matter? Because if it's finite, a finite amount of matter, spread out in an infinite Universe, well, that means, well, matter is spread out so thinly, it becomes CMB, and without anisotropy, we have heat death. So here's a metaphysical question for you, if you have an infinite amount of matter, and an infinite space to put it in, do you still have space between your matter, or is the entire Universe full of matter, with no spaces?

So, what if matter and space are the same thing. That solves this question, but we're effectively talking about ether then. Matter being nothing more than waves in the ether?

A steady state is not simpler, more elegant or more beautiful than a big bang then, and it doesn't solve the question of origins at all, rather just ignores that question. Probably the biggest question of all time! I know science doesnt have to provide satisfactory answers, that's not it's job, but not having this question answered certainly lacks the 'beauty' aspect a theory is supposedly to have.

A BB requires a "before", which in turn then requires an "after". The BB also postulates an expanding universe which in turn requires an "outside". These then become mysteries that parallel the "creation", "final day" and "heaven/hell" in turn in religion. I think that this pretty much represents thinking in the box. The only difference is that religion is content to leave matters as "mysteries". But the mainstream science clergy marches on ignoring what may be a reasonable alternative.

What is wrong with the concept of infinity? It's not that difficult to grasp. Mathmeticians do it all the time. Must everything have a boundary or beginning or end?

An infinite universe, in both time and dimension, in which there is a continuing exchange between "space" and "matter" seems to be a reasonable, and I might add elegant, alternative to the BB. The only theory that needs to be proved, and it's already been offered, is that matter can "pop" in and out of "empty" space.

@marv
I don’t want to sound like a preacher but,
I would disagree with most of what you have said.
The bb theory does <b>not require</b> a before. As I’ve said before the infinite temperature, infinite matter compressed into a singularity is beyond our current mathematics to deal with. (<I>that</I> is the major detraction to the theory, IMHO)

The Ekpyrotic Universe is <B>another theory</B> dealing with the big bang, but in its case, it gets around the infinities by using 5 dimensional membranes.

The classical BB postulates an expanding universe which <b>does not </b> requires an "outside", because the big bang `creates` space-time that is expanding into a `region` that contains no space-time, a sort of <b>infinite void</b>.
(<i>in this case, the infinities are not scary for the mathematician, because we don’t need to make any calculation on it for the theory to work – but generally, when infinities crop up in calculations then something is wrong</i>)


These thing may seem strange to the layperson,
and it is good that you do question them, (as any good scientist should),

but when thousands of others have tried to find alternative theories to fit what we see, or find major flaws, and have failed (<i>so far</i>), we must tend to lean toward the idea that the theory is on the right track…

The bb theory does not require a before. As I’ve said before the infinite temperature, infinite matter compressed into a singularity is beyond our current mathematics to deal with. (that is the major detraction to the theory, IMHO)

The Ekpyrotic Universe is another theory dealing with the big bang, but in its case, it gets around the infinities by using 5 dimensional membranes.

The classical BB postulates an expanding universe which does not requires an "outside", because the big bang `creates` space-time that is expanding into a `region` that contains no space-time, a sort of infinite void.

(in this case, the infinities are not scary for the mathematician, because we don’t need to make any calculation on it for the theory to work – but generally, when infinities crop up in calculations then something is wrong)

but when thousands of others have tried to find alternative theories to fit what we see, or find major flaws, and have failed (so far), we must tend to lean toward the idea that the theory is on the right track…What is being said here is that the singularity which "created" the BB is the "god" that created the universe. What's being offered are mysteries offered as answers to what are really simple questions. It seems that we are all too intent on complicating the trivial. "...infinite temperature, infinite matter compressed into a singularity..." Why was it compressed, when, and what did it? "The Ekpyrotic Universe...gets around the infinities by using 5 dimensional membranes." Unproveable theories needed to support unproveable theories is a red flag. "...the big bang `creates` space-time..." Then where was the singularity except in some mysterious "nowhere, notime"? ...a `region` that contains no space-time, a sort of infinite void...this is a contradiction , but I see a glimmer of hope in the phrase "infinite void"!
This begs the question, "Where is the failure of an 'infinite space, infinite time' model of the universe." As theories go, why would that not be just as valid, as a theory, as the BB? I do see one advantage to the BB theory, however. It preserves the option of a theistic order to the universe.

Thousands of scientists have invested careers, reputations, grant money and many decades in the BB. Although I've invested nothing in any theory, I can understand why they exhibit such vigor in holding on to the BB. I guess I would, too.

(<i>in this case, the infinities are not scary for the mathematician, because we don’t need to make any calculation on it for the theory to work – but generally, when infinities crop up in calculations then something is wrong</i>)


Couldn't agree more:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html

I agree that infinities cropping up in math calculations pose a problem. However, the "infinity" discussed here deals with the nature of the universe.

Hi Phlogistician ( That's a develishly hard word to spell. Does it mean something in some language ?)

I was going to answer some of the strange selfcontradictory questions you posed in your reply to my post about a universe that is infinite in time and space. But I see that Marv (now there is a nice short handle) have already done so.
However Blobrana's sentence " when matter was consentrated in one singularity we have no math to deal with it" caught my eye. And it seems to me that, that is precisely the reason (or one of the reasons) why the BBT cannot be taken seriously. Now, we know that math can be used to describe things that we cannot see or hear or touch. So if even math fails us, where are we? I'm reminded of a famous saying by Einstein "SO FAR AS MATHEMATICS REFER TO REALITY, THEY ARE NOT CERTAIN. AND SO FAR AS THEY ARE CERTAIN, THEY DO NOT REFER TO REALITY"

As ever, kid regards from APOLO

Apolo, no matter which model you prefer, there is still the 'where did it come from' question. Solid state Universe just ignores this point. It's like saying 'god did it', and drawing a line under your investigations. How did the matter/energy come into being in a solid state Universe?

Marv hasn't answered my questions at all. He just threw out some more. The BB does not require a 'before'. Nothing caused the BB. The BB was the birth of space/time, the creation of dimensions.

The problem here for people, is that our thinking is constrained by what we see every day. We see matter as solid, indestructible, and it's interactions predictable, and described by simple maths. We use terms like 'laws' to describe the ways in which matter behaves, and the mathematical models we use to describe those behaviours. That's a very Victorian mindset. Matter doesn't obey 'laws', it just is. It does what it does, and we observe, and model.

On closer inspection, matter behaves in very complex ways, and requires some truly scary mathematics to describe those. But matter can still do whatever, it is not constrained by logic, rules, or mathematics. All of these things are derivatives _from_ the existance of matter, because we exist because of matter. mathematics and logic do not exists outside the Universe, they are inside it.

So, in a void, before a Universe has sprung into being, what have you? Nothing, it's a void, remember. Try not to take too much of yourself into that void, you aren't there either. So, this void, what is is constrained by? Nothing. What can happen then? Well, logic says nothing, because we need a chain of events. Remember though, Logic is a product of the Universe, it does not exists outside it. So, what is constraining the behaviour of this infinite void? Nothing. So what can it do? Anything. Can matter suddenly spring from somewhere? Of course, what's stopping it?

Of course, matter is made of energy, energy is a wave, with positive and negative parts to the waveform, hence waves, at the right time, and right pahse, can temporaily cancel out each other. So the sum of energy in a wave, over an even number of cycles, is zero. So what was created in the big bang? Nothing more than unbalance. A differential, between positive, and negative. a variation from Zero. Now, there are some interesting mathematical concepts, these being Zero, and Inifinity. In this Infinite void, suddenly we have something which is non-zero. An infinite amount of zero adds up to a 1. What is the 1? Our entire Universe. Everything that is. How big was it? It was just 1? Well, it got complex (maths pun for the initiated), which gave us dimensions.

OK, so that last part was a rather abstract mathematical illustration. The physcial version is, we have no rules, so anything can happen. Anything did. Anything suddenly, was very different from nothing, and suddenly became the biggest thing. Luckily, something didn't collapse in on itself. nor expand in a uniform fashion, and formed a framework to support matter.

Simple, elegant, beautiful.

Now, explain where all the stuff came from in the steady state Universe, and maybe you have a model to rival the BB.

Hi Phlogistician ( That's a develishly hard word to spell. Does it mean something in some language ?)


Phlogiston was the hypothetical 'fire-essence' that was supposed to make stuff actually burn. :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

...no matter which model you prefer, there is still the 'where did it come from' question. Solid state Universe just ignores this point. It's like saying 'god did it',...Not exactly. The "infinite dimension, infinite time" model requires no begining or end by definition. Nor is ID-IT a static model, it only requires the interchangeability between matter and energy as Einstein conveniently proved and Hiroshima demonstrated.So what was created in the big bang? Nothing more than unbalance. A differential, between positive, and negative. a variation from Zero. Now, there are some interesting mathematical concepts, these being Zero, and Inifinity. In this Infinite void, suddenly we have something which is non-zero. An infinite amount of zero adds up to a 1. What is the 1? Our entire Universe. Everything that is. How big was it? It was just 1? Well, it got complex (maths pun for the initiated), which gave us dimensions....and no exotic theories to support a "creation". We may have no rules, but nature certainly does; it's simply a matter of uncovering them.

Not exactly. The "infinite dimension, infinite time" model requires no begining or end by definition.

But where does the matter/energy come from in your model? Can you explain that? Saying 'it was always there' isn't an answer! IF the 'Universe' has always been there, where did it's contents come from? THAT is a 'beginning' question.


We may have no rules, but nature certainly does; it's simply a matter of uncovering them.

'nature' is defined by the Universe, as it exists now. Nature is part of our Universe. Nature does not exist outside, nor govern, our Universe.

If our Universe sprang into existance from a void, that's nature.

Phlogiston was the hypothetical 'fire-essence' that was supposed to make stuff actually burn. :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Correct, and a 'phlogistician' would be a made up name for someone who keeps fanning the flames, .....

...where does the matter/energy come from in [the ID-IT model]? Is it necessary for everything to have a begining or end as in the BB model? And where did this "void" that contained the singularity that gave birth to the BB come from?IF the 'Universe' has always been there, where did it's contents come from?The "contents" have always been there. It's the ultimate re-cycling example of E=MC² and M=E/C².'nature' is defined by the Universe, as it exists now. Nature is part of our Universe. Nature does not exist outside, nor govern, our Universe.That's your opinion. Mine is that nature and the universe are one and the same. Nature is more than flowers and trees and fish. Nature is everything, everywhere, always.If our Universe sprang into existance from a void,......that "void" had to have been either finite or infinite. Which do you choose, phlogistician, to satisfy the BB theory in a non-theological manner?

This comes close to an either/or argument. There are two choices: universe from BB from singularity from void from ?????OR universe!So that leaves us with.......a 'phlogistician' would be a made up name for someone who keeps fanning the flames,........and "Marvin" is 'friend of the sea', that nasty stuff that trys to wash clean and put out fires. :D

Hum,
Well ultimately, you may be right.

i.e., it’s possible that there is just one question.
As in <b> universe----> BB->universe----->BB->universe</b> etc...

However, perhaps asking that question is meaning less as our universe (our space-time) would be separate from any proceeding universe (which by definition means everything)

<b> universe----> empty->universe----->empty->universe</b>

The other universes would perhaps be very similar to our universe (with Darwinian principles involved) but they would be totally `cut-off` from our universe.

Perhaps since we don’t have the mathematic to deal with infinities at the beginning, perhaps we could look at the other end…
I.e., How can an expanding universe produces a big bang (er, quantum fluctuations)?

Or perhaps we can just sidestep the infinities by saying that singularities are not bottomless pits, but have a finite size , albeit very, very small 10^-42 cm in size…
Then we can use our normal everyday maths to make sense, and perhaps verifiable with observation of black-holes (singularity), or the creation of mini black holes in the next gen colliders.

Is it necessary for everything to have a begining or end as in the BB model?

It's not just the BB model that has a beginning! In a 'steady state' model, the questions are still unanswered 'where did it all come from from' and 'how did it come to exist'. Handwaving over these questions and saying 'it was always ther' is NOT an answer!


And where did this "void" that contained the singularity that gave birth to the BB come from?

It didn't come from anywhere. A void, is a void. A void is not space. A void is a void is a void. It is nothing, it isn't really an 'it'!

This comes close to an either/or argument. There are two choices: universe from BB from singularity from void from ?????OR universe!

No, it doesn't leave us those choices at all.

The choices are;

The Universe sprang into being because there was no reason why it shouldn't.

OR.

The Universe has always been there, and everything in it wasn't actually ever created, but can still exist somehow, because we're ignoring the difficult questions.

Perhaps since we don’t have the mathematic[s] to deal with infinities at the beginning,...Is that all that prevents us from considering the ID-IT model?
...perhaps we could look at the other end… I.e., How can an expanding universe produces a big bang (er, quantum fluctuations)?To prove an end, you have to also prove a begining.
...perhaps we can just sidestep the infinities......please don't sidestep a legitimate proposition...I secretly suspect that the avoidance of the word "infinity" in any description of the universe has something to do with the association of the word with Judeo-Christian deities. Just a suspicion mind you. :confused: No offense intended.
......by saying that singularities are not bottomless pits, but have a finite size...we can use our normal everyday maths to make sense...Hmm. I can make pot stew taste like anything from grilled salmon to apple pie - as long as I adjust the ingredients and still call it "pot stew". :D

Hum,

"<i>to prove an end, you have to also prove a beginning</i>"
i don’t know about that, that really starts to sound like philosophy...;)

"<i>sidestep the infinities</i>" - what’s the point of rhetoric questions?
hum, perhaps i should have said <b>unbounded</b>, but as i implied before it’s the mathematics that dictates how we deal with it.

(BTW Being a Pictish pagan, i do hope i don’t come across as a Judeo-Christian.)

Anyway, i think your catching on, adjust the ingredients and certain "pot stews" will taste better than others...

Hoyle leaves a bitter taste, while the bb tastes reasonable (just now), but ppl cook up new ideas all the time.

Well, not so much philosophy as logic. So I disagree that it’s the mathematics that dictates how we deal with it. Reason and logic are also required. Mathematics, unfortunately, can be used to "prove" almost anything. Just ask an accountant! And I'll be the first to admit that reason. as well as logic, can also err.

I'm an atheist and not a mathematician, so perhaps that makes it easier for me to accept the concept of "infinity" in a real, physical universe. But when I discuss something like ID-IT, I get the sense in people that there is a real need for some kind of "creation" scenario. Most people I talk with seem, at least passively, to desire some sort of "higher power", something beyond human ken.

Anyway, i think your catching on, adjust the ingredients and certain "pot stews" will taste better than others...For my taste, creation by a deity is pastey, empty, and cold like grits. BB is somewhat better, but it has too many ingredients and conflicting flavors like a Christmas fruitcake. For me, ID-IT is best of all with a simple, straight-forward and robust flavor like the BBQ pork ribs I did today. :)

First of all thanks to mercurio. When I read the word phlogiston, a little light went on in the back of my brain. So apparently we have a student of ancient greek history in our midst, How nice.

Phlogiston. I read your response to my last post. And then I read it again. My first reaction was; what a bunch of absolute (I was going to say nonsense) but I'm serching for a kinder word, hard to understand piece of writing. First you keep asking for the umpteens time "the SST does'nt explain what was before the beginning of the universe and where did it come from. Marv and Southstar and I have repeatedly told you, that question cannot be asked about the SST. It is like looking at a globe and noticing the line of the equator and asking, but where does it start ? If some one were to keep asking that, he would soon be takin away by some men in white coats. Now listen Phlogiston. You are obviously a fairly intelligent human beeing, but you have a mental block when it comes to grasping the idea of the concept of infinity and no beginning and no end. Every hypothesis (which both the BBT and the SST is) starts with a basic cocept or postulate, and then every thing is built up from there. F.ex. Geometry starts with the fundamental axiom that; beween 2 points you can draw one and only one straight line. And then all the rules about triangle, circles a squares are built up from there. The SST starts with the assumption that the universe has always existed. It was'nt built or exploded or started by god, it was and is just there. And then the hypothesis is built on from there. You may try to falsify it, or find some compelling evidence showing that it cant work. But you cant ask how did it get started any more than you can ask; why we cant we draw more than one straight line between 2 points. You may wander into spherical geometry and say; I can so draw 2 different lines between 2 points. But if we are considering
euclidian geometry, that's just the way it is.

So please. Dont ask anymore, How did it start ?

REGARDS APOLO

Hum,
Here is a small summary of the evolution and beauty of the big bang theory. (As it has not really been properly outlined here).
As I understand it, when the Time = 10^-43 seconds, and the Temp = 10³²K (the Planck epoch), all four fundamental forces were unified and "particles" as we known them could not have existed. Beyond this point, the classical theory becomes meaningless, because our conventional physics breaks-down.
(Sry, no apologies, for my lack of friendly layperson speak – but I have highlighted keywords in bold to be googled)
At this time, it is thought that Gravity and the Strong Force are at the same scale. <b>1/R₂</b> is extremely large (R is very, very small), and particles can be created from the gravitational field into a 10 dimensional point.
A couple of weird things can happen, for example, one particle can have all the energy of the Universe, and it could be same size as the Universe.

Therefore, even if we had the mathematical tools, I doubt we could <i>really</i> understand that physics.
Basically, quantum physics tells us that it is meaningless to talk in quite such extreme terms, it is better that we should consider the expansion as having started from a region no bigger across than the so-called <b>Planck length</b>(10^-35m), when the density was not infinite but `only` 10⁹⁴ grams per cubic centimetre. (<i>These are the absolute limits on size and density allowed by quantum physics</i>)

At this time, the theory can explain the mechanism; <b>quantum uncertainty.</b>
The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, New York City University, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.
Quantum fluctuations would form temporary quantum bubbles, (for example pairs of particles - such as electron-positron pairs) out of `nothing`, provided that they disappear in a short time. The more mass created, the shorter the virtual bubble could exist, and just inside these bubbles, <b>Higgs particles</b> released their energy as they decayed. Supersymmetry was breaking, making the bubble grow.
When the symmetry is broken, forces are <i>decoupled</i> (a phase transition) in a specific manner so that the forces have now separate characteristic.
This defines the physics of our Universe.
It is thought that of the original ten dimensions, 6 compactified, leaving 3 macro-dimensions and one temporal dimension.

(<i>The energy in a space-time gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat, then the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. It is also expected that the rotation, and charge, of the Universe is also zero.</i> )

One problem, thought, was as the bubble was gradually filled with energy, and the bubbles of the "true vacuum" (with a nonzero Higgs field) percolate and grew, <b>baryogenesis</b> occuring at or near the bubble walls, the gravity would stop it expanding...
It was a problem encountered with an early version of the theory: that if a <b>quantum bubble</b> (about as big as the Planck length) containing all the mass-energy of the Universe did appear out of nothing at all, its intense gravitational field would immediately crush it into a singularity.

Luckily, development of inflation theory showed how to remove this difficulty and allow such a quantum fluctuation to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence.

<b>Supersymmetry breaking</b> provided the energy for inflation, of course.
For example, at the Planck time, 10^-43of a second, gravity would be created/broken, and by about 10^-35 of a second the strong nuclear force.
Within about 10^-32 of a second, the scalar fields would have doubled the size of the Universe at least once every 10^-34 of a second (some versions of inflation suggest even more rapid expansion than this).

It would mean that in 10^-32 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 10²⁰ times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 10³³ seconds. At that point, the scalar field had crystallized leaving the Universe rapidly expanding so that the influence of gravity would not pull everything back into a Big Crunch.

This give the Universe an outward push (acting like antigravity) while it was a Planck length in size. Such a small region of space would be too small to contain irregularities, so it would start off isotropic and homogeneous. There would have been enough time for signals (travelling at the speed of light ) to have crossed the tiny volume, so there is no horizon problem. In addition, the expansion flattens space-time itself, in much the same way that a balloon becomes smooth, as it is blown-up. If we blow-up the balloon big enough, say the size of the earth, the surface will appear flat.

At this time Supersymmetry breaking is also predicted to have created a few other oddities; cosmic strings are thought to be supermassive relics of this process, forming at phase transitions. Other relic objects from topological defects are also predicted, such as <b>monopoles</b>, textures and domain walls.
In the case of monopoles there should be 10⁸⁰ of them out there...
(but we don`t see any - see previous post ,on how inflation got rid of them)


When the Time = 10^-11 seconds, and the Temp = 3x10¹⁵ k (<b>The GUT epoch</b>) the other three forces remained unified. The small excess of matter that makes up the universe today must have been created during this epoch,
Shortly after the Strong force separates, then the Weak force and the Electrostatic force (which hade the same magnitude.)

<b>omega=1</b>
If the Universe starts out with the parameter less than one, omega gets smaller as the Universe ages, while if it starts out bigger than one; omega gets bigger as the Universe ages. The fact that omega is between 0.1 and 1 today means that in the first second of the Big Bang it was precisely within 1 part in 10⁶⁰. This makes the value of the density parameter in the beginning one of the most precisely determined numbers in all of science, and the instinctive deduction is that the value is exactly <b>1</b>.
One important feature of this is that there is a large amount of dark matter or energy in the Universe. Another is that the Universe was made flat by inflation.

[A common confusion is that inflation seems to violate the faster-than-light rule. Even light takes 30 billionths of a second (3 x 10^-10 sec) to cross a single centimetre, and yet inflation expands the Universe from a size much smaller than a proton to 10 cm across in only 15 x 10^-33 sec. This is possible because it is space-time itself that is expanding, carrying matter along for the ride; nothing is moving through space-time faster than light. Indeed, it is just because the expansion takes place so quickly that matter has no time to move, and the process captured the original uniformity of the primordial quantum bubble. As into what the universe is expanding into is also a bit confusing to the layperson; space-time expands (perhaps I should say `enhances into`) a region that contains no space-time, a region that contains absolute nothing, the Void.]

The inflationary scenario has already gone through several stages of development during its short history. The first `classical` inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky, at the L. D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, at the end of the 1970s. It was a model based on a quantum theory of gravity, it became known as the "<b>Starobinsky model</b>" of the Universe.

In 1981, Alan Guth, then at MIT, published a different version of the inflationary scenario. Guth came up with the name "inflation" for the process he was describing. There were obvious flaws with the specific details of Guth's original model. In particular, Guth's model left the Universe after inflation filled with a mess of bubbles, all expanding in their own way and colliding with one another. We see no evidence for these bubbles in the real Universe, so obviously the simplest model of inflation couldn't be right.

In October 1981, the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde presented an improved version, called "<b>new inflation</b>", which got around the difficulties with Guth's model.
The next step forward came with the realization that there need not be anything special about the Planck- sized region of space-time that expanded to become our Universe. If that was part of some larger region of space-time in which all kinds of scalar fields were at work, then only the regions in which those fields produced inflation could lead to the emergence of a large universe like our own. This "chaotic inflation", because the scalar fields can have any value at different places in the early super-universe; it is the standard version of inflation today, and can be regarded as an example of the kind of reasoning associated with the anthropic principle (nothing to do with "chaos theory").

The idea of <b>chaotic inflation</b> led to the next development of the inflationary scenario. A tackling of the singularity and, "before" the singularity. (<i>remember, time itself began at the singularity – so the `before` is not in a temporal sense</i>). Chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of space-time, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. New universes could bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process, which had no beginning and will have no end. A twist on this theory suggests that the process takes place through black holes, and that every time a singularity is formed it expands out into another set of space-time dimensions, creating a new inflationary universe - this is called the baby universe scenario.

Even Darwinian principals can be applied to this process. As new Universes are formed, they (probability) take on the physics of the parent Universe. If the initial conditions are exactly right then the baby Universe will collapse back. This may explains why our Universe is so finely tuned.
There are similarities between the idea of eternal inflation and a self-reproducing universe and the version of the Steady State hypothesis developed by Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, with their <b>C-field</b> playing the part of the scalar field that drives inflation.

One of the first worries about the idea of inflation (long ago in 1981) was that the process was so efficient at smoothing out the Universe, how could irregularities as large as galaxies, clusters of galaxies and so on ever have arisen? Quantum fluctuations could produce tiny ripples in the structure of the Universe even when our Universe was only 10^-25 of a centimetre across -- a hundred million times bigger than the Planck length.
Observations of the background radiation by a satellite called <b>COBE</b> showed exactly the pattern of tiny irregularities that the inflationary scenario predicts.
The theory said that inflation should have left behind an expanded version of these fluctuations, in the form of irregularities in the distribution of matter and energy in the Universe. These density perturbations would have left an imprint on the background radiation at the time matter and radiation decoupled (about 300,000 years after the Big Bang), producing exactly the kind of nonuniformity in the background radiation that has now been seen, initially by COBE and later by other instruments.

After decoupling, the density fluctuations grew to become the large-scale structure of the Universe revealed today by the distribution of galaxies. This means that the COBE observations are actually giving us information about what was happening in the Universe when it was less than 10^-20of a second old.

No other theory can explain both why the Universe is so uniform overall, and yet contains exactly the kind of "ripples" represented by the distribution of galaxies. This of course does not prove that the theory is correct.
The theory also makes another prediction, that the primordial perturbations may have left a trace in the form of gravitational radiation with particular characteristics, and it is hoped that detectors sensitive enough to identify this characteristic radiation may be developed within the next ten or twenty years.

Another big snag with the simplest inflation models, is that after inflation even the observable Universe is left like a mass of bubbles, each expanding in its own way. We see no sign of this structure, which has led to all the refinements of the basic model. Now, however, this difficulty has been turned to an advantage.

It is suggest that after the Universe had been homogenised by the original bout of inflation, a <i>second burst</i> of inflation could have occurred within one of the bubbles. As inflation begins (essentially at a point), the density is effectively "renormalized" to zero, and rises towards the critical density as inflation proceeds and energy from the inflation process is turned into mass. Nevertheless, because the Universe has already been homogenised, there is no need to require this bout of inflation to last until the density reaches the critical value. It can stop a little sooner, leaving an open bubble (what we see as our entire visible Universe) to carry on expanding at a more sedate rate, into something looking very much like the Universe we live that can arise naturally, with no "fine-tuning" of the inflationary parameters.
All done using the very simplest possible version of inflation, going back to Alan Guth's work, but applying it twice.

In addition, you don't have to stop there. Once any portion of expanding space-time has been smoothed out by inflation, new inflationary bubbles arising inside that volume of space-time will all be pre-smoothed and can end up with any amount of matter from zero to the critical density (but no more)….

Whoops got carried away there…and I haven’t even got to the <b>Ekpyrotic</b> version…

I find the idea of the sequence universe----> BB->universe----> BB->universe----->BB->universe etc... particularly convincing, as it doesn't require a formless and dimensionless void to expand into; this sequence could be extended backwards and forwards indefinitely, and so is practically a steady state universe in itself.

Hmm. Some people have suggested we should dedicate ourselves to the task of creating some long lived form of matter which could last through the long empty period into the next big bang; I have lost the link for the moment, but I think it was called something like 'the message in a bottle' strategy; they did point out that a vast number of these bottles would need to be constructed, as most random fluctuations in the empty period would end up as black holes, destroying the message.

I think this would be a diverting hobby for the immortals of the far future faced with the end of our own universe...

So please. Dont ask anymore, How did it start ?



No really, I must. See, the question is;

"How did the Universe come into being, and where did all the matter come from?"

... and you are just dodging that. You're hiding behind infinity, but infinity doesn't really exist now, does it? You haven't explained away _any_ of the concerns I have with SST, (inifinite Universe, Infinite mass, heat death, ether) either.

Your equator analogy is flawed btw, as that's a closed loop. If you were saying that a steady state Universe is a loop of time, and therefore not actually infinite, we might be getting somewhere. But I have a real problem with any model that has to uses 'inifinity' to explain itself. Of course, a loop of time has huge quantum mechanical problems, as I'm sure you're aware. There can be no dislocations in a wave function in quantum mechanics, all edge parameters must equate, so this Universe, if in a loop of time, would have to arrive back in a state it's already been in, to restart the loop. That means a certain physical state being _exactly_ the same as it once was, down to the momentum of the last photon.

That sounds like a singularity to me! Well done, you've convinced me the Universe was born out of a singularity!

I find the idea of the sequence universe----> BB->universe----> BB->universe----->BB->universe etc... particularly convincing, as it doesn't require a formless and dimensionless void to expand into; this sequence could be extended backwards and forwards indefinitely, and so is practically a steady state universe in itself.


Sorry. Impossible scenario due to ever-increasing entropy. Would still need 'something before that'.

@ mercurio
Hum,
Wouldn’t entropy be reset (close to zero) when it when it went through a big bang phase (singularity) – I was thinking of a `budding` process for the creation of a new/multiple Universe.

< quote >
I find the idea of the sequence universe----> BB->universe----> BB->universe----->BB->universe etc... Particularly convincing, as it doesn't require a formless and dimensionless void to expand into; this sequence could be extended backwards and forwards indefinitely, and so is practically a steady state universe in itself.
< /quote >

Imagine an unbounded region that contains nothing, no time, no space no dimensions in it.
Now create a ripple in it, a wave (<i>that is <b>-1</b> and <b>+1</b></i>) that the sum of is <b>zero</b>… what has changed? The <b>Void</b> is still empty, i.e., <b>Void + (-one + 1) = Void.</b>

But there is no reason to get phased about the term Void.
The sequence <b>universe-----> BB->universe------> BB->universe------->BB->universe </b>
Still has to `enhance` into something (I proposed that perhaps we could call it `enhanced into` rather than using the term `expand`, as that implies an `outside` to our space-time – a limitation of language).

And if the sequence was <b>universe-> BB->universe-> BB->universe->BB->universe </b>, with the creation of every universe unable to `enhance into` the void (due, say to a lack of symmetry breaking energy), so that there is no mathematical `need` for a void; At the end of the day/equation it doesn’t matter…

A bit like Feynman's black box equations to describe (deal with) the different (infinite) particle interactions .
http://www.americanscientist.org/content/AMSCI/AMSCI/Image/MediumImage_2003728111726_546.jpg

Ie two particles -->[black box] --> two particles…


http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/26005

Ahhhh, me!

blobrana, you, eburacum45 and phlogistician support theories requiring infinity and it matters not whether it's a void before a BB, or a re-bounding universe. Yet none of you seem to be able to accept a concept of an ID-IT model which "begins" (a pun) with infinity. There are only two alternatives: either something was "created", or something has "always been" (in the sense of the universe).

The BB begins with a singularity without explaining exactly what it was or where it came from. Then the BB occured and immediately is encased in convoluted math using theoretical temperatures, particles, mass, time, etc., none of which can be shown to be beyond speculation. Therefore, the BB, whether single or rebounding, consists of theories piled upon theories attempting to justify other theories. It becomes a series of theoretical feathers supporting theoretical feathers. In the end, it does produce an unproveable "creation" which can be understood by most even if not demonstrable to any.

Perhaps a poor analogy to ID-IT, but mention of the points along a straight line being infinite comes to mind. One argument against ID-IT is that mass should also be infinite in an infinite universe. That's the equivalent of saying that all points along the straight line between the two points must be selected at once. That's wrong. Different points can be selected along the straight line at different times in the same sense that matter and energy are interchangeable as proven by Einstein and demonstrated with every nuclear detonation and every nova and every match flame.

Now my apologies, but I have to pause at this point to go to town for groceries.

You might be right, and then again, you might not. Entropy is an observed phenomenon of our universe; it may not apply on the larger scales we are talking about.

But now I am beginning to sound like a fringe theory-type person, so I won't take that line of reasoning any further...

It's all a big paradox.... :rolleyes:

Got the grocery shopping done, and did a good deed along the way, but I'll not bother anybody with that. Anyway... Entropy is an observed phenomenon of our universe;...I'll agree; I've seen it in my gravel driveway every time it rains. It shows up at the bottom where my drive meets the road!

And I might be wrong about ID-IT, too.

I'm simply offering what seems to me and some others to be a more reasonable alternative to the BB. We've been lost in this math game of "proving" a BB for so many decades, and invested so much in money and reputations, but really gotten nowhere. Physicists develop a few more theories and equations but can only claim to have moved only another, ever diminishing, sliver of time closer to something physicists desperately want to see. Too often, when we do that, we put on blinders so that we will see only what we want to see, even if it's not there. Why can't we take a step back and "think outside the box" as was suggested earlier?

@eburacum45
On the subject of entropy, i believe Stephen Hawking recently has managed to calculate (a fringe theory?) that black holes do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."
If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our Universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like, but in an unrecognisable state.
It was long believed that black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as even Hawking long believed, all in stark contrast to subatomic theory that says such elements must survive in some form.
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, through Hawking's radiation, they send their transformed contents back out into space-time…
To quote (I think) Hawking:
"<I>The black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell in, so we can be sure of the past and we can predict the future.</I>"
"<I>The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when analytically continued to the Lorentzian. On the other hand, the path integral over all topologically non-trivial metrics is asymptotically independent of the initial state. Thus, the total path integral is unitary and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. The way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon.</I>"

So if we take it that we know that the universe is expanding, and will continue expanding forever .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
(link to WMAP probe data)

Then eventually (after the blackholes evaporate) the universe will contain “a mangled form” of entropy. A entropy that has been reset to zero.

@ mercurio
Hum,
Wouldn’t entropy be reset (close to zero) when it when it went through a big bang phase (singularity) – I was thinking of a `budding` process for the creation of a new/multiple Universe.


I'm afraid not. The big bang starts out with a huge entropy to begin with, and it gets only bigger. A recollapse does not prevent that. Big problem with the whole scenario, as I said. :(

"The final entropy of the Universe as it approaches the Big Crunch singularity would be larger than the initial entropy of the Universe because of the heat added by nuclear fusion in stars, so a recollapse does not involve a decrease in entropy."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

Hum,
Yeah, perhaps I didn’t convey what I meant when I said a `budding` process.
I was thinking about an aging universe full of blackholes, which progresses into a universe just full of radiation (With all the matter/energy having passed through black holes).

And that a `new` universe would spring from a quantum fluctuation from our heat death universe.

(The big crunch idea being discounted due to new findings from the wmap probe)

However, I think that it’s still an open question as to what information is recorded in the entropy emitted from a black hole.

I read Blobrana's Post of yesterday (it took all the patience i had ) and the kindest thing I can say about it is; It looks like some thing written by a government beaurocrat (did I spell that right)

Advise to Marv. We better quit this thread. It's impossible to discuss theories with some one who refuses to even consider the concpts of infinity and no beginning.
Maybe we should go to another threat and discuss politics or global warming.
Regards APOLO

The BB begins with a singularity without explaining exactly what it was or where it came from. Then the BB occured and immediately is encased in convoluted math using theoretical temperatures, particles, mass, time, etc., none of which can be shown to be beyond speculation. Therefore, the BB, whether single or rebounding, consists of theories piled upon theories attempting to justify other theories. It becomes a series of theoretical feathers supporting theoretical feathers. In the end, it does produce an unproveable "creation" which can be understood by most even if not demonstrable to any.

Not demonstrable. Very true, which is why it is unscientific. Or at the very least, a "pipe dream".

Tell us about your good deed

Not demonstrable. Very true, which is why it is unscientific.

Not demonstrable? Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4035747.stm

"The head-on collision of these particles not only replicates the conditions that existed just moments after the Big Bang, it generates other particles that can tell scientists more about the nature of the Universe. "

That will demonstrate things quite nicely I think. Real science, being done to validate a theory. That is why the BB _is_ scientific.

Physics breaks down at the singularity, the instant of the big bang, but if we can follow the trail to just after that moment, I think we have it nailed.

I HIGHLY doubt it can demonstrate "inflation" though. And since inflation cannot be shown with the scientific method, the big bang model is still hugely flawed.

Hum,
By the same logic
We can never demonstrate a supermassive black hole, therefore if it cannot be `shown` then the theory is flawed.
I suppose i could also add things like supernovas, the temperature of the earth’s core, mathematical terms like pi, etc...

All these things have to be deduced, from other scientific experiments/observations/calculations/probabilities etc...

So perhaps your right, we perhaps have to move away from the `strict empirical` scientific methods to more holistic methods.

@Apolo
Actually, I believe in a no beginning scenario for the universe.
In addition, I do not have a problem dealing with infinities.
However, I discount the steady state theory because there are better theories out there.
(Based simply on personal dislike of the incompleteness of that theory, Six times nine is Forty Two)
That is not to say that at some time in the future that theory could be reworked to explain what we observe in a simpler way, and replace the current BB theory.
Do not be so quick to judge.
Please re read my posts.

Tell us about your good deedWhen I went to town yesterday, I came across a car with the 2-way blinkers flashing. So I stopped and asked what the problem was. The young boy driving was out of gas. So I took him home where he picked up a gas can, drove him into town to Johnson's Mini-Mart for gas. Took him back to his car and suggested he fill up when he gets to town.

All in all, it took maybe half an hour, but it got his vehicle off of a very dangerous part of the county road - headed uphill, on a curve of a two lane 22' road without shoulders to pull off onto to get out of the traffic lane. To pass his stalled car, drivers had to crest the hill in the oncoming traffic lane.

People down here in the Ozarks tend to be very helpful.Actually, I believe in a no beginning scenario for the universe.
In addition, I do not have a problem dealing with infinities.That is good news. However...However, I discount the steady state theory because there are better theories out there.Every nova we observe, and every cloud birthing a new star demonstrates that the universe is very dynamic and constantly changing. Again, Einstein proved the interchangeability of energy and mass. Perhaps a definition, or at least a common concept, of "steady state" would be worth discussing. Mine would start with simply "unchanging". Comments?Advise to Marv. We better quit this thread.That's passed through my mind, but at least for the time being, I've ruled it out. Education begins when you funally graduate from school. That's when your mind stops being filled like a vessel and the fire of your mind should be lit by the discussion of ideas. My 2¢.

Hum,
You mean `the universe is very dynamic and constantly changing, therefore unchanging`…?

The original Steady-State Theory states that the laws of physics were the same in the past as today.

How could we be sure? (Look at the spectra of stars?)

The laws of physics have to be the same in all parts of the universe, and at all times as well. The Universe would also be the same, always static, always contracting or always expanding.
Unfortunately, Olber's Paradox ruled out the first two by the simple Observation that the sky is dark at night.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/olbers_paradox.htm

Hoyle proposed that the decrease in the density of the universe caused by its expansion is exactly balanced by the continuous creation of matter uniformly condensing into galaxies that take the place of the galaxies that have receded AWAY from the Milky Way, thereby maintaining forever the present appearance of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

Therefore, we still see an unchanging view of the universe…

To produce the matter, `negative energy` would balance out the expansion and condense out into new matter. Very similar to the virtual particles and false vacuums.

<b>So what do we see today?</b>

Unfortunatly, the distribution of deep space radio sources is not uniform.
A graph of the log of the number of sources at a particular brightness, to the log of the number of sources brighter than that brightness, should have a gradient of <b>1.5 (=3/2)</b>.
For radio sources we see the ratio is <b>1.8</b> showing that there are more bright radio sources at greater distance, and hence earlier times than would be expected for a steady state universe.
The conclusion is that the universe is evolving or at least changing.

The discovery of quasars in 1966, <b>also</b> provided evidence the constitution of the universe a few billion years ago was very different than it is today, and of course, the microwave background radiation (CBR), contradicts the steady-state theory.

We have an elegant theory that does not match up to observation.
in the future the theory may be `tweaked` to fit, but just now it doesnt.

[ added: quasi-steady state theory...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Hoyle.htm ]

If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

So perhaps your right, we perhaps have to move away from the `strict empirical` scientific methods to more holistic methods.

In which case anything is fair game, as long as it patches up a theory.


Aliens from the other universe started the big bang. This is a scientific theory. It is not demonstrable, just like inflation. I don't care. By this argument, it is still a valid scientific theory because it patches up preexisting problems.

Hum,
Well exactly..

i was also going to mention that it would be interesting to see if we can disprove the earth is flat.
However, i see you’ve played the alien card already...

The alien card trumps any other argument so I automatically win. :D

I'm just saying, in that case, there is room for an untold measure of speculation and arbitrariness.

I also heard some people say inflation is still around because it is the only viable theory. That is obviously non sequitur, just because it is the only explanation around doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Not that inflation is the only explanation around.

The inflation hypothesis is quite tightly constrained. It is falsifiable, and therefore scientific.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109439

best piece I've seen so far on inflation with all pros and cons, falsifiability etc. not only explained but discussed point by point.

Highly recc'ed.

Thanks, mercurio.

I read in some post a few days ago. "The BB does not require a before, nothing caused the BB. The BB was the birth of space and time." This sounds a bit like something I read in a different place. "In the beginning was the void, and god created the heaven and the earth. And the earth vas without form and void. And god said, let there be light, and there was light" And this was the big bang. Who said the last 6 word sentense ? The Pope did ! ! that happened in 1992 and he said that heceforth Catholics would be allowed to beleive in the BBT. I kid you not this realy happened.

All I have to add is, that when the pope endorses a scientific theory, a red flag goes up in my brain.
REGARDS APOLO

Andrei Linde, one of the founders of inflationary theory, has formulated an 'eternally self-replicating Inflationary Universe' scenario;
the idea of eternally increasing entropy doesn't seem to worry him; and if it can be reset then it might not be such a problem after all.
http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf

Hum, indeed…
The resetting mechanism would occur through black holes (if hawking were right)

If he is wrong,
then an alternative theory could be that when the universe has expanded so much so that space is expanding faster than light, (all the forces are remember are constrained by the velocity of light) then there would be, effectively, no gravity, no atoms, magnetic fields , but perhaps full of entropy, etc .
It’s still an ideal place to have quantum fluctuations that would create a new universe,

But,
In addition, it’s just a thought; the arrow of time would seem to point <b>backwards</b>, in the `new` universe.

So the `new` universe would start with high entropy that becomes lower as the universe evolves…
The only constraint that sets the arrow of time would be the boundary conditions of the beginning and the end (aka, wheeler Feynman time theory) that either reflect or absorb messenger/force carrying particles.

http://astro.wsu.edu/allen/courses/astr135/Notes/cosmology.html

I wrote a paper on this but unfortunately I left the paper before coming home for Thanksgiving and I don't remember my sources.

Can anyone tell me how the inflationary model is supported by the scientific method?

I vote inflation down the toilet because it is unscientific. Not one shred of it seems unarbitrary. As to the topic title, if the inflation model is a "pipe dream", then the big bang theory falls apart too.

As the vast majority of scientists and astronomers think that the big bang theory is correct, your paper carries little creedence.

As the vast majority of scientists and astronomers think that the big bang theory is correct, your paper carries little creedence....and since most of Earth's inhabitants accept some sort of deity(s)/creation scenario, I guess atheism is wrong.

I repeat, the BBT is nothing more than a non-theistic alternative to some sort of "divine" creation - nothing more. But it probably makes those cosmologists with some lingering hope of an afterlife feel a little more comfortable. Makes money, too!

Even though I am highly secular, the question of where everything comes from still touches my religious side - the side of awe, humility, and utter oblivion.

As the vast majority of scientists and astronomers think that the big bang theory is correct, your paper carries little creedence.

..And I almost laughed.

"In the beginning was the void, and god created the heaven and the earth. And the earth vas without form and void. And god said, let there be light, and there was light" And this was the big bang. Who said the last 6 word sentense ? The Pope did ! ! that happened in 1992 and he said that heceforth Catholics would be allowed to beleive in the BBT. I kid you not this realy happened.
All I have to add is, that when the pope endorses a scientific theory, a red flag goes up in my brain.
It is obvious that the BBT was endorsed by the pope because it is essentially a creationist theory i.e. it tries to put a limit to our intellectual understanding of the universe (which should just be fine for any church person).
What's more, Georges Lemaitre, the 'inventor' of the Big Bang Theory, was also an ordained catholic priest (see for instance http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html ).

See http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm for my own criticism of the Big Bang Theory.

Does it matter if it was the Pope himself? The main thing is that this is the theory most universally accepted by the majority of scientists and wannabe scientists than any other theory.

Does it matter if it was the Pope himself? The main thing is that this is the theory most universally accepted by the majority of scientists and wannabe scientists than any other theory.
The truth is not determined by majority vote. Otherwise we would still be dabbling in the Ptolemaic Theory of the universe which was widely accepted for 2000 years before Copernicus came along.

I wonder how it happenned that God has crept in to the discussion on this thead so much. I thought that would belong on the religion thread. If some one beleives there is a God and that he created the universe, I respect his beleif, but I do not discus scientific theories with him.

REGARDS APOLO

I wonder how it happenned that God has crept in to the discussion on this thead so much. I thought that would belong on the religion thread. If some one beleives there is a God and that he created the universe, I respect his beleif, but I do not discus scientific theories with him.

REGARDS APOLO

I can only say that what we nowadays divide into science, philosophy and religion used to be one and the same thing.

The fact that certain religions have put a specific brand name on it, does not alter the fact that they still are in a deep sense one and the same thing.

And up to a point, same goes for science. Philosophy is a sort of catch-all for all else.

What brand of local deity you asked for favors, was a different matter and up to taste, or lack of it, but free. Big monolithic religions altered that.

We're not so free these days. Not in religion, or in science, for that matter. Divided ballpark and all that, and vested market interests to keep it that way.