"Big Bang: How the Universe was created"

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dumbest man on earth, Aug 17, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I saw this on the BBC website a few days ago. It presents a ~4-minute animation that some may find interesting.

    - the ^^above quoted^^ from, and more(including animation), this Link : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140812-how-was-the-universe-created

    Again, some Members or Readers of SciForums, that have as yet to read/view the article, may find it interesting or entertaining.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I consider that a pretty good version of the "something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe. The other two main contenders are "God did it", and "Always existed".

    There isn't much one can say about the three main possible explanations except that we as individuals may find one easier to believe than the others.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Aways existed is the most reasonable and therefore logical
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    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.

    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.

    http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>













    "God did it" is a non scientific answer and a copout,
    "ALWAYS EXISTED" Evidence shows the contrary. Simple as that.

    The easiest to believe is the one that is supported by the evidence. The BB/Inflationary theory.
     
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,855
    If the meaning of nothing is ambiguous, the supposed meaning of any of that is meaningless. I know what nothing should mean. I never know what to think of "nothing". Seems they want to say nothing without meaning nothing. Absurd.


    So the logical default is that there was space & time.


    No, it does not. Even your above citation claims it came from something tho very strangely, they want to say it came from nothing. As far as we know so far, everything has a cause & everything that exists always existed in some form. Simple as that.
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Yes, but why don't we give Paddoboy a chance to support his claim that there is evidence to the contrary. It seems like it would be like trying to prove a negative.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    I presented an article by a very reputable Astronomer and echoed many times since by others.
    The article does conclude thus.......
    " 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."
    That speculative scenario, does not in anyway defy or break the known laws of physics.

    The BB says space and time evolved from a singularity. Singularity entails the Planck/quantum scale at which the laws of physics and GR have no say.



    My citation was also speculation, although reasonable speculation aligning with the laws of physics.
    The current incumbent theory of Universal evolution, the BB, does not cover that.
    In fact according to the BB, time and space came into existence. There was no before, in anyway we are as yet able to understand.

    Let me add.....There is nothing at all wrong with speculation, as long as people recognise it as speculation.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The physics is available to review. Eternal Inflation predicts that space and time existed before our inflation event occurred and continues to exist eternally into the future. Inflation events have a specific beginning and the set of 'specific beginnings' are eternal into the future. The 'beginning or non-beginning' of this process is hidden behind an event horizon in the past. When I read the book about inflation Guth referred to the spacetime as a quantum scalar field [quantum field theory] and the 'thing' that inflated as a soliton. He likened the mass of the soliton to be 'ballpark' to the mass of a green pea [garden variety]. I'd list all the references [I've done a thousand times] but nobody ever reads them in this forum. To busy blowing smoke up their own ass with the caveat that they really don't want to review any information that conflicts with ' a hobby model'.

    1001 for this one with pictures and Guth speaking to a room full of string theorists back in 2003.

    Eternal Inflation
    Alan Guth (MIT)
    http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/

    Back when he wrote 'The Inflationary Universe' he wasn't aware that all inflationary models would be Eternal. You want to read a great book about a great idea with plenty historical content on the history of cosmology this is it.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Well put brucep!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    We have evidence that there was an event that evolved space/time/Universe as we know them.
    [1]Observed spacetime expansion: [Mentally reversing that arrives back at a Singularity.
    [2] CMBR at a predicted 2.7K
    [3] Abundence of lighter elements
    [4] Galactic formations aligning with the very tiny temperature variations in the CMBR
     
  14. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    Prof. Guth's lecture on inflation.

    [video=youtube;ANCN7vr9FVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANCN7vr9FVk[/video]
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    brucep, first off, I must emphatically state that I do not have 'a hobby model'.
    I also must add that I actually do read any and all Links that are Posted in any Thread that I participate in.

    That being said, it took me the better part of 40-minutes to read(and comprehend?) the 26 linked .pdf's. Although I did not go through all of the 'math' with a fine toothed comb! I do not utilize the Higher Math's these days as much as I once did, so doing so would have increased my reading/comprehension time.

    At any rate, I thought that I might mention that 2 paragraphs(total of 8-lines of text) of the "slide" presentation were "repeated" consecutively at the Link. I say this so that you may possibly believe that I did indeed read the Link.

    So, brucep, I must say that from reading your Post, and the Link, it appears(to me at least) that Alan Guth is not in 'complete agreement' with what was Posted in the Post immediately prior to, and the two Posts immediately following your Post containing that Link.

    brucep, is my 'deduction' correct?
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I wrote that post for paddoboy. I don't expect him to be 'up' on every detail. I agree with the fact that paddoboy enjoys this science and he's not trying to bullshit anybody with nonsense. So you're trying to get me to say I disagree with paddoboy? LOL.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Good one. He's my fav scientist. Kinda like Magic is my fav Laker of all time.
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Post the abstract not just the pdf.

    Inflation doesn't claim to be eternal into the PAST. It predicts a beginning or non beginning can't be known because it is spacelike behind the event horizon which is predicted by the co moving cosmological observers. Thought I pointed that out. In the link, I provided, Prof Guth points this out to his audience. It claims to be eternal into the future. Without reading all the paper I see where they calculate it would end somewhere < eternal due to 'running out of steam' to make an analogy. That paper predicts a beginning for the inflating multiverse and an end for the inflating multiverse. A past and a future. None of that will nullify the experimental verification of testable predictions associated with inflation. Of course there are opposing views on every topic. This isn't really one of them. Your view has no chance of being anything more than 'opposing'.

    After reading the conclusion section of the paper the authors feel they've resolved the conservation law issues associated with the Eternal prediction. It would be nice to see the abstract. Maybe I'll look for it after dinner.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Again, thanks brucep.
    What I do understand is that eternal Inflation does not invalidate the BB, and that appears what some people are trying to propose, [along with that usual infatuation with me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ].
    I mean I'm not a bad looking bloke for an old bastard, but in this instance, the mind boggles!
     
  21. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    brucep, you took my query wrong possibly. You Posted :
    From the above, and Alan Guth's "slides" on "Eternal Inflation", he seems to propose that "...that space and time existed before our inflation event occurred...".

    I simply stated that "it appears(to me at least) that Alan Guth is not in 'complete agreement'..." i.e. That just possibly "space and time" existed prior to "our inflation event"/ the Big Bang?

    I did not say "disagree", nor "try to get" you to "say" that you "disagree with" anyone.

    After reading your Post and the Link, I was just trying to get "clarification" of Alan Guth's position on whether or not "space and time" existed prior to "our inflation event"/ the Big Bang?

    Nowhere in this Thread have I stated anything about anyone "trying to b*llsh*t anybody with nonsense".
    There is no reason to read anything into my Post, other than what I actually Posted.

    Believe it or not, I thoroughly enjoy Science.
    Believe it or not, I was just trying be 'up' on the 'detail' that I inquired about.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.
     
  22. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi dmoe, everyone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I caution all concerned to consider carefully before sounding so 'certain' that some 'beginning from nothing' is 'supported by the facts'.

    Especially if such 'postulated/backtracked' assumptive 'beginning or non-beginning' is hidden behind an event horizon in the past (as astutely noted by some already), and hence actually UNKNOWN and MOOT according to conventional physical/logical theories which start from some 'assumed dimensionless point' along the theorizing trajectory and cannot actually cover any such 'beginning from nothing' aspect at all.

    Hence unless one has incontrovertible evidence (not merely assumptive scale-comparison 'exercises/conclusions' which are meaningless physically/logically unless they also provide/explain what absolute-scale reference for making such assumptions/comparisons), then Occam's Razor approach' is the only valid/tenable starting premise for making any further sort of 'Principle of Parsimony' physical/logical postulations about the Universal Nature, Origins and Processes at ANY 'stage' imaginable into the past, present and future.

    And Occam's Razor would have it a-priori as "Infinite Eternally Recycling/Processing Universal Energy-space content/extent". Good luck with your 'explanations/conclusions' if you are postulating/starting out otherwise.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers, dmoe, everyone; enjoy your discussions!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    Such a humble man. My second favorite cosmologist after Sean Carroll.

    For those interested, here is Guth again talking about the recent gravity wave results. Skip to 22:25 for a truly fantastic discussion.

    [video=youtube;70Y1Dri0umI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Y1Dri0umI[/video]
     

Share This Page