The Story of the Universe: : Tutorial :

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Oct 10, 2015.

  1. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    The problem with the big bang theory is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. But not if there was more than one big bang:



    This is a serious lecture by a major heavy hitter, Sir Roger Penrose. This multiverse theory has no beginning. It is a steady state model. And there might be a way to verify it using gravity waves. I know the big bang theory is the most widely accepted theory today, but it is not necessarily the final word. You really should watch this one, paddoboy. You might actually learn something.

    And here is a lecture by Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilczek, on fine tuning the standard model:



    The point is that science marches on and that takes creativity and imagination. Talking about the cutting edge is a lot more interesting than just repeating ad nauseum how the big bang theory is supported by 4 out of 5 dentists. This video is supportive of your position. You don't have to thank me. My problem is not with the big bang theory. My problem is with the tight assed way you present it.



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Bullshit.
    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-big-bang-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
    No, it doesn't. In fact, it's the biggest validator of the second law of thermodyamics that there ever is.

    We have no evidence at all, or any indication that there was more than one BB.


    Yes, Roger is one of the giants of cosmology on whose shoulders we stand to see further, and he was also a great speculator, just as I like doing.
    Yep, I've been telling you that for a while now, and also mention it in my tutorial.In recent times the BB has seen added a few scenarios that are now accepted....Inflation, Acceleration in expansion, DE, and DM.
    Where I come from we say arse, and mine is OK.
    Your problem is certainly with the BB, and myself putting it as it is generally accepted by mainstream, and separating it from speculation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The following is speculative stuff, but still interesting and thought provoking......
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

    A Universe from Nothing
    by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

    Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

    Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

    In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

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

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

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

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

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



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    No. My problem is with your pedantic hammering that the BB is the accepted, mainstream cosmology when I have no problem with that. I fully accept that the BB is "generally accepted by mainstream". Okay?

    When that lame authoritarian argument is the only one you offer as a response to every post, it makes for a really boring thread. We can all Google search the standard model (and that has the added benefit of bypassing the totally unnecessary stream of insults).

    I have acknowledged my acceptance that the big bang is the most widely accepted, mainstream cosmological model. Now, perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Please?

    We don't have any direct evidence yet, but we do have logic.

    If a universe can come from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations, why would there only be one universe? Quantum fluctuations happen all the time. If one universe can just pop into existence from a random quantum fluctuation, there would logically have to be an infinite number of universes popping into existence constantly.

    Doesn't that make sense? Or do you disagree with the article you just posted?


    "The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all..."

    As far as a universe coming from nothing, what is the meaning of nothing, in your opinion?

    1) the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time
    2) nothing at all



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  8. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    It's a fact of life that something cannot come from nothing at all.

    That's because the definition of nothing is nothing. In mathematics the number zero means exactly that: nothing.

    It is very simple, nothing interacting with nothing produces nothing, not something. It is impossible for something to come from nothing. That is a law of logic. Defy logic and you have entered never-never land.

    My point is: it is not possible to produce something from nothing. Based on logic is won’t work. Nothing interacting with nothing equals nothing.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Good. [and that of course includes Professor Krauss]
    My authoritarian approach, along with the scientific methodology and peer review will continue, despite your angst.
    With regards to the insults, You'll get as good as you give, OK?
    Sure.

    We have overwhelming evidence for the BB. as detailed in the tutorial OP.
    Correct, but we have no evidence of anything beyond t+10-43 seconds, it's as simple as that. So it remains speculation....good speculation, imo, but speculation none the less.

    I agree entirely with the article I posted, including the part that goes like this.......
    "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch"!
    No space, no time, just nothing.
    No.
    Bingo!
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    We do not know that with any certainty. Far better though than imagining some mythical pixie in the sky that had no beginning.
     
  11. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

    Here is a great example of how disingenuous you are. I brought up the possibility of a multiverse with multiple big bangs, and you said:
    So I replied:
    Then you take my statement out of context to imply that I was claiming that we don't have direct evidence for the BB.
    My statement obviously means we don't have direct evidence for a multiverse. I was not saying that we don't have evidence for the BB. So instead of discussing the valid and potentially interesting idea of the multiverse, you try to switch back to your repetitive authoritarian argument which I already accept. This is extremely disingenuous. You changed the meaning of what I said so you could argue with a straw man.

    And then you repeat this statement that you have made so many times before:
    But your statement makes no sense since it doesn't relate at all to the question I asked you:
    So you completely dodged my interesting question that requires some actual thinking, and instead you just repeated your authoritarian argument that my question is speculative. Nice.

    I realize my question is speculative but I'd still like to get your thoughts on the subject:

    If a universe can come from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations, why would there only be one universe? Please answer this. Thank you.

    So from your "no space, no time, just nothing" perspective, how can you be so certain of quantum fluctuations happening in absolute nothing when we only have evidence that this something from nothing paradigm happens within the preexisting space and time of the universe, i.e. the imperfect "nothing" of outer space that already has stuff in it? In other words, we don't have any actual evidence that quantum fluctuations can happen in absolute nothingness, yet you are certain it must happen. While, at the same time, you are equally certain that quantum fluctuations that we know do happen in the imperfect vacuum of space could not lead to a big bang. Could you please explain why you have such a strangely contradictory and illogical position?

    I am glad you are finally admitting some humility. But you are fixated on the idea that the universe must have had a beginning. You are strongly opposed to theories that also fit the observable evidence, like the multiverse, that postulate no necessary beginning. I think you are religious, and you are trying to leave room for a creator. That would explain your authoritarian attitude as well as your obsession with constantly repeating that "we have no evidence of anything beyond t+10-43 seconds". I thought this was supposed to be a science forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The actual prediction by Guth is the soliton in the quantum scalar field had the mass of a garden pea. From his famous book. There's stuff you are not aware of. Read about the predicted inflation event where the energy driving the inflation remains negative throughout the entire inflation event and is converted to the matter we can detect and can't detect [so far] as the event reaches its minimum potential. This is a simple explanation Guth wrote back in 1997. The part I was talking about is the section on the pressure of the vacuum.
    https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What are you spitting the dummy for then?
    Yeah sure....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just as so many accused you of the same thing in your economic bullshit doomsday thread.
    Trying to get out from under, while maintaining your fanatical "victory" objection, is leaving you rather confused and disorientated.
    Let me state it again, just to emphasise the point.....
    The BB is the overwhelming supported theory for universal evolution...got it?
    The BB is a name given in an act of derision by Hoyle of steady state fame, and has nothing to do with any explosion...got it?
    The BB does not give us the why or how, nor does it apply at the instant...got it?
    The BB is a model of the evolution of space and time [spacetime from t+ 10-43 seconds....got it?
    Professor Krauss supports emphatically the BB model as recognised by most...got it?
    Anything else you like to imagine is just pure speculation....got it?
    I have answered it thank you.
    Correct, but we have no evidence of anything beyond t+10-43 seconds, it's as simple as that. So it remains speculation....good speculation, imo, but speculation none the less.
    Apologies, I was not aware of your reading/comprehension problems which are now obvious.
    Let me say it again......read slowly and carefully

    Understandable why the others in your economic doomsday thread, woke up to your lies, misinterpretations and twisting of the truth.
    Let me again straighten you out.....
    No scientific theory is certain....so wrong again, no humility on my part.
    Yes the universe did have a beginning according to the overwhelming evidence, which you yourself has begrudgingly admitted after I pointed out your nonsensical take on things.
    What you think about me being religious is of no concern to me...Our peers on this forum will judge you and your claims, and I remain confident they'll do that correctly.

    You see my boy, your problem is this fanatical childish "victory" and other equally childish remarks earlier about "running away" or words to that effect.
    We had another nutty troll that was just as childish in his outlook and remarks.
    I won't mention the entire misconception you have about 21st century cosmology at this time, although its obvious enough I would suggest.
    Anything more I can help you with, just ask.
     
  14. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    I thought quantum fluctuations have to occur in empty space (i.e. the vacuum)? Before the birth of our universe there did not exist space. Are quantum fluctuations still allowed in these circumstances?
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Firstly it was not me...It is a quote/article I supplied by
    Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
    This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

    In other words we don't know...as they say in the article, and as my nutty friend cannot absorb, it is speculative.
    Personally, In most cases, I say that space and time [AS WE KNOW THEM] evolved from the BB....meaning that whatever existed before [if anything] was unknown or an unknown state of space and time.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Eternal Inflation predicts the quantum scalar field where the event occurred exists before the beginning of our universe. It predicts that inflation events are infinite in extent [eternal]. It also predicts that knowledge of the origin of the inflation field, if any in the past, is hidden behind an event horizon.
     
  17. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    1) You seem to be making the same religious argument about the unknowable singularity as paddoboy. Are you also religious?

    2) Given the very large quantum probability of inflation events occurring given an eternity of time, isn't it reasonable and logical to conclude that there must be a multiverse? If not, why not?

    So I was right. You are religious.

    That explains why you are fixated on the idea that the universe must have had a beginning out of nothing. And it explains why you are strongly opposed to sensible theories that also fit the observable evidence, like the multiverse, that postulate no necessary beginning. It also explains your authoritarian attitude and especially your obsession with constantly repeating that "we have no evidence of anything beyond t+10-43 seconds".

    What's with the light grey type? Are you whispering?

    I understand my question was speculative. I was hoping you would speculate on the question. That is what a discussion is for. So, here is my question again:

    If a universe can come from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations, why would there only be one universe? Please answer this. Thank you.

    Good question, John. That is just what I was asking paddoboy when I said this:

    So from your "no space, no time, just nothing" perspective, how can you be so certain of quantum fluctuations happening in absolute nothing when we only have evidence that this something from nothing paradigm happens within the preexisting space and time of the universe, i.e. the imperfect "nothing" of outer space that already has stuff in it? In other words, we don't have any actual evidence that quantum fluctuations can happen in absolute nothingness, yet you are certain it must happen. While, at the same time, you are equally certain that quantum fluctuations that we know do happen in the imperfect vacuum of space could not lead to a big bang. Could you please explain why you have such a strangely contradictory and illogical position?



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Given the fact that most scientists/cosmologists today accept the universe had a beginning according to the evidence, and given the fact that most scientists/cosmologists are Atheistic, your question/remark, points to an unsound, troubled and vindictive mind .
    Given the 100% fact that we have no evidence of anything before t+10-43 seconds, your question points to someone with a troubled and unsound mind.

    Like other alternative nuts on this forum, I have yet to see you be right about anything.
    Given the fact that we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds, and given the fact that once again you appear to be rambling incoherently, and given the fact that no one knows for certain about that beginning, and given the fact you continue with your fabricated unsound, unevidenced nonsense, one could conclude the source being a troubled emotive unsound mind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Given the fact that you keep repeating a question that has been already answered, points to a highly irrational state of mind.

    Please take a disprin and have a good lay down before you have a coronary.

    John's question was answered, post 92, although attributed to yourself in error. Strange you did not pick it up.
    Your mistaken belief that the position is illogically contradictory, rests on your "quality" of lying and misinterpreting data. It's all speculative territory, and your ineptitude to see and accept that, points to a troubled unsound mind.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Firstly it was not me...It is a quote/article I supplied by
    Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
    This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

    In other words we don't know...as they say in the article, and as my nutty friend cannot absorb, it is speculative.
    Personally, In most cases, I say that space and time [AS WE KNOW THEM] evolved from the BB....meaning that whatever existed before [if anything] was unknown or an unknown state of space and time.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://gizmodo.com/5904714/mathematic-proof-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning
    Mathematic Proof That The Universe Had A Beginning:



    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

    Did the universe have a beginning?


    Abstract :

    We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

    conclusion:
    Did the universe have a beginning?

    At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.
     
  21. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Your post is gibberish. You just repeated your authoritarian position yet again and dodged my questions yet again. Apparently you don't know how to think a single original thought of your own. This is sad and pathetic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think I just heard that Lawrence Krauss changed his mind on the big bang theory. Um...I saw it on the news. Yeah, that's it. And then I had my wife, uh...Morgan Fairchild, call Lawrence Krauss on the phone and he personally confirmed the story. No really. Ha ha.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds

    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds
    we have no evidence for anything from t+10-43 seconds




    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What really is pathetic is your state of mind, as was first revealed in your oil economic doomsday thread and continued on here.
    When totally demolished, resort to apparent humour, to shield from the truth...sad again.

    And than we have the continued trolling that you have been banned for before.
     

    Attached Files:

  23. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    When totally confused and cornered with questions you are afraid to answer, resort to dodging and weaving. Of course it is possible that the reason you won't answer is that you are unable to form original thoughts. Which is it, fear or stupidity? Both?
    Another common tactic you use is to just make shit up. I am not a troll and I have never been banned from this forum.

    You have spent an entire page pathetically dodging two simple questions. So I will just ask them again:

    Question #1
    If a universe can come from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations, why would there only be one universe? Quantum fluctuations happen all the time. If one universe can just pop into existence from a random quantum fluctuation, there would logically have to be an infinite number of universes popping into existence constantly.
    If a universe can come from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations, why would there only be one universe?

    Question #2
    From your "no space, no time, just nothing" perspective, how can you be so certain of quantum fluctuations happening in absolute nothing when we only have evidence that this something from nothing paradigm happens within the preexisting space and time of the universe, i.e. the imperfect "nothing" of outer space that already has stuff in it? In other words, we don't have any actual evidence that quantum fluctuations can happen in absolute nothingness, yet you are certain it must happen. While, at the same time, you are equally certain that quantum fluctuations that we know happen in the imperfect vacuum of space could not lead to a big bang.
    Could you please explain why you have such a strangely contradictory and illogical position?

    And here is another simple question:

    Question #3
    In your personal view, did your God cause the big bang?



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015

Share This Page