"Big Bang: How the Universe was created"

this is IMHO but... I am not sure that is a valid argument or even logical considering that the BB was from a singularity which, by definition means that all the laws of physics that we KNOW are pretty much out the window...

it also makes a flawed assumption that the universe BEFORE the BB event is the same type/style/same laws pf physics etc as the one AFTER... which is not logical considering that there is a serious issue with the existence of space and time at the singularity point as well as a serious issue with extrapolating data BEFORE the BB event based upon the known reality AFTER.

you cannot take a complete unknown with no possible way (currently) for us to examine and make assumptions based upon what we know now because that is applying a set of rules or laws that might not be valid under the conditions before the BB... and we KNOW that the laws are definitely not valid AT the point of BB and that certain laws don't even fall into place until AFTER the BB event!

this is not like forensic evidence before and after a bombing, where we know the applied laws of physics and we know that if A is exposed to B then C will happen... this is a complete UNKNOWN at the singularity point where space/time actually began... so there is also a wall there prohibiting our examination of the before issue until we know more about and can more accurately define a singularity... and that will take physics FAR beyond what we have today as well as empirical data (likely from our examinations of Black Holes and BH physics... not the theoretical stuff, either...)

but again, this is IMHO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TCS, you ARE new here.
Only someone relatively new would expect

from Wellwisher.
He specialises in

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, Italian. May I have some of those croutons?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None left.
Doctor Who wiped them out.

 

Just to add to that previous comment of mine, I'm not in any way adverse to alternative hypothesis.
What gets on my goat, is the audacity of some that put their crap with 100% certainty over and above the incumbent models.
Then we have our closet God botherer/Creationists, insidiously trying to continually derail or invalidate mainstream acceptance of current models, in a vain effort to somehow shoe-horn in the pixie in the sky.
In that regard, I'm happy to say that I have been instrumental in revealing at least two of these insidious closet dwellers.

On Inflation though, I remember somewhere sometime, reading an article speculating in the scenario, that scientists/cosmologists, may one day be able to utilise Inflationary theory postulates, and we could conceivably be able to create a Universe in the Lab!
It prompts the question though, is the Universe we presently inhabit, also a product of a Lab experiment by an advanced species...Perhaps a type 3 or 4 civilisation on the Kardashev scale.

 

I did find this.......
http://web.stanford.edu/~alinde/

Where at the conclusion of the first "Inflationary multiverse" lecture, it concludes thus......
" In particular, it provides a scientific justification of the cosmological anthropic principle, and allows one to discuss a possibility to create the universe in a laboratory".

Other aspects discussed in the link are....
A Brief History of the Multiverse:
Are there any Alternatives to Inflation?:
Dark Energy and the Fate of the Universe:
Self-Reproduction of the Universe:


And the following link.......
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/egghead/2004/05/the_big_lab_experiment.html
which concludes with the Interesting thoughts thus......
"You might take this all as a joke," he said, "but perhaps it is not entirely absurd. It may be the explanation for why the world we live in is so weird. On the evidence, our universe was created not by a divine being, but by a physicist hacker."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By 'selectively quoting' articles, one can effectively "obfuscate" the full implications and full content or context of the articles that is 'selectively quoted'.
The following is the "full section" from the 1st Linked Page of Post #46, under the heading "Inflationary Multiverse" - I have added Bold to a few of the "passages" that may be pertinent to where the Topic of this Thread has been "diverted" to.

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://web.stanford.edu/~alinde/

The "Inflationary Multiverse" on that Linked Page is actually a Link to "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe" by Andrei Linde, which addresses some of the "complicated problems" with the Big Bang theory. It is interesting reading for anyone that truly 'enjoys this science' and is truly interested in actually becoming more knowledgeable in the Science of Cosmology.
Andrei Linde's Paper, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe", can be read in its entirety by following the Link at the ^^above quoted^^, or at this Link(Link is to a .pdf) : http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

As far as the 2nd Link from Post #46, the "which concludes with the Interesting thoughts thus......", actually continues to 'conclude' on the second Page.
Although the article appears to be "Philosophical Ruminations" from May 19 2004, on a variation of Intelligent Design, I will provide the Full content of the : "which concludes with the Interesting thoughts thus......" :

- from : http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/egghead/2004/05/the_big_lab_experiment.html
- and : http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/egghead/2004/05/the_big_lab_experiment.2.html

Fully reading and properly "quoting" Linked information can lead to a much better understanding, and more importantly, even further learning of the true knowledge available in any properly researched area of any Scientific Discipline.

 

And even adhering to all those qualities, makes no difference when you have an agenda that culminates in the most contorted interpretations one would wish to see.
Sad.

 

More on your continued anti mainstream science ranting.
Nothing Andre Linde says or claims, deny the evolution of the Universe/multiverse/spacetime, via what is known as the BB.
Ideas, suggestions are always open for discussions, and Linde's "Cosmic Inflation"model is one aspect, and again aligns with what we know as the BB.
Again your Interpretation has terminal problems dmoe.

Here's an article earlier this year......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.space.com/25118-big-bang-inflation-andrei-linde-video.html
No matter how impressed or intrigued you were to hear that researchers had found the "smoking gun" for the universe's incredible Big Bang expansion, your reaction cannot compare to that of Andrei Linde.

The Stanford University physicist appeared overwhelmed and on the verge of tears after learning that a team of astronomers had detected the signature of primordial gravitational waves — a key prediction of the theory of cosmic inflation, which Linde helped refine in the early 1980s after it was originally proposed by Alan Guth.


If the new results hold up, they confirm that the universe did indeed undergo a period of incredible inflation just after the Big Bang, exploding from mere quantum fluctuations into something of macroscopic size in just a few tiny fractions of a second.
Includes a video.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, sad to say dmoe, your rejection of the BB is shown again to be way wide of the mark, as is most of your anti mainstream cosmological doubts.
The BB/Inflationary model, is the accepted mainstream model, and like any scientific theory, is always open for tinkering, and modifications as further observations are made.
But rest assured, claiming some deity or Intelligent design is a possible prediction or part of either the BB or Inflation is Journalistic poetic license....no more, no less.
And that you will just have to live with my good friend.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

- the ^^above quoted^^ from, and the Full Paper, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe" by Andrei Linde can be read at :
http://web.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

If what is "quoted" ^^above^^ is the result of "an agenda that culminates in the most contorted interpretations one would wish to see", then those supposed "most contorted interpretations" are presented by Andrei Linde.

 

FACT:Andre Linde supports BB/Inflationary model of Universe Evolution:

You have the agenda dmoe, and that agenda forces you to doubt all mainstream scientific models, in the forlorn hope of shoe-horning in some intelligent design myth.
Scientific papers will continue to be published by reputable people such as Linde, and Guth with fresh data supporting Inflation and its concepts, but none invalidate the BB. None claim the BB did not happen. None are saying it is wrong.
They are suggesting possible variations that may solve some problems.
That is science...that's the way it operates.

Some of those problems [eg about the size of the Universe] may not be as claimed.
I have seen different estimates and claims.

Even with those problems, no other theory of Universal evolution comes within a Bull's roar of the BB/Inflationary model and that's the way it is at this time.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf


If you have any evidence to the contrary, please stop fart arsing about and present it.

 

he Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters awards the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2014 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics to:

THE 2014 KAVLI PRIZE IN ASTROPHYSICS is awarded to Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and Alexei Starobinsky “for pioneering the theory of cosmic inflation.”
The theory of cosmic inflation, proposed and developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and Alexei Starobinsky, has revolutionized our thinking about the universe. This theory extends our physical description of the cosmos to the earliest times, when the universe was only a tiny fraction of a second old. According to this theory, very soon after our universe came into existence it underwent a short-lived phase of exponential expansion. During this brief period the universe expanded by a huge factor – hence the name inflation. The consequences of this episode were momentous for the evolution of the cosmos.
Without inflation, the Big Bang theory – a great achievement of 20th century science – is incomplete. According to the Big Bang theory our universe came into existence approximately 14 billion years ago. Its initial density and temperature were unimaginably high. Since then, the universe has been expanding at a rate that can be calculated using Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. In spite of its astounding success, the Big Bang theory suffers from two major shortcomings: the “horizon” and the “flatness” problems. Cosmic inflation solves them both.

more at........
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-astrophysics-citation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Its old

1980-82