Brief History of the Universe

[SWP's back]

Here we go again, quite disgraceful.

Seeing as you're permanently offended, why not just ignore the threads of this ilk, or better yet, me.

You're like a bad gambler that can't help himself at the bookies.

 

[80s Shorts]

PMSL, you claimed there were no mathematical models to support the theory, I pointed you towards them, you said you supported MOND not that you were interested in it, a niche theory after attacking what were only suggestions because they departed from consensus...and if you don't stop shouting at me I'll report you to the mods for your complete lack of respect, mind you given the free rein you seem to have to hurl personal abuse at other posters I doubt you'll get a ban.

pfft, I'm out of here, I'll ban myself from this thread so you can continue. Nighty Night

I wouldnt leave. I found you very interesting and Domocles is just on the rag again.

 

[Green Jacket]

Last time i checked Big bang was called Big bang theory a hypothesis - A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

Basically just another way of saying we don't really know how the universe formed but our best educated guess is that it all started from a single atom exploding.

 

[SWP's back]

The future is self evidently caused by the past. Infinate regress is perfectly acceptable in maths because negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do.
but Real beings only move from past to future and need causes, they are not like numbers.

To which real beings do you refer?

 

[80s Shorts]

To which real beings do you refer?

Everything which you can see.

 

[paulsimpson]

A

No he isn't. He is blissfully and totally unaware of what causality actually means on a scientific level and because of this is quoting philosophical arguments instead of actually talking about science.

Argumentum ad hominum guys :-)

I've argued scientifically and philosophically which hasn't been countered as yet ,it seems .
The atheist has no way out except to argue for infinite regress . That seems to be his ' god' . Infinite regress is scientifically and philosophically impossible . Likewise the principle of causality comes AT the Big Bang ( cosmic while hole expansion or black hole in reverse perhaps ) . So the argument which still stands .
The universe came into being . It certainly cannot create itself in my view
So there's only one option

 

[80s Shorts]

A

Argumentum ad hominum guys :-)

I've argued scientifically and philosophically which hasn't been countered as yet ,it seems .
The atheist has no way out except to argue for infinite regress . That seems to be his ' god' . Infinite regress is scientifically and philosophically impossible . Likewise the principle of causality comes after Big Bang ( cosmic while hole expansion or black hole in reverse perhaps ) . That wouldn't affect the argument which still stands .
The universe came into being . It certainly cannot create itself in my view
So there's only one option

Within the scope of the argument and the scope of our brains there are only two possible eternal "somethings" that are possible- the universe or a creator- and one of them has been ruled out by the evidence we have. A steady state universe had no need for a cause but an expanding universe certainly does.

 

[Damocles]

PMSL, you claimed there were no mathematical models to support the theory, I pointed you towards them

Okey dokey, let's have a look at these "mathematical models in support of the Big Bounce"

1. "Penn State Researchers Look Beyond The Birth Of The Universe". Science Daily. May 17, 2006. Referring to Ashtekar, Abhay; Pawlowski, Tomasz; Singh, Parmpreet (2006). "Quantum Nature of the Big Bang". Physical Review Letters 96 (14): 141301. arXiv:gr-qc/0602086. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96n1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.141301. PMID 16712061.

This is an article about a paper published 10 years ago and not an actual paper. However within the referenced 10 year old paper is an attempt to take the ideas quantum loop gravity and join them into a time where spacetime was smooth, in what they termed quantum loop cosmology. The problem here is that they aren't formulating a mathematical model in support of "the Bounce" they are literally just applying QLG equations onto the larger scales. The Big Bounce is something built on top of the results of these equations.

So to simple they have taken quantum loop gravity, an idea that has little evidential support, and then applied the same ideas to the larger scales. That's what this paper is. The Big Bounce is something that takes this paper and sits around talking about interesting conclusions it might draw if a bunch of things that have no support were true. You've confused "an idea existing" and "an idea having any real support". I've been wanting to say this for a while too but never get down into the science but Roger Penrose doesn't support the Big Bounce idea and his idea of a conformal cyclic models are related but not the same. Oh, and not evidentially supported either.

1. Jump up ^ Kragh, Helge (1996). Cosmology. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00546-X.

This is a cosmology book for the layman and not a scientific paper.

1. Jump up ^ Overduin, James; Hans-Joachim Blome; Josef Hoell (June 2007). "Wolfgang Priester: from the big bounce to the Λ-dominated universe". Naturwissenschaften 94 (6): 417–429. arXiv:astro-ph/0608644. Bibcode:2007NW.....94..417O. doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0187-x.

This is a biographical account of a scientist and not a scientific paper.

1. Jump up ^ Bojowald, Martin (2007). "What happened before the Big Bang?". Nature Physics 3 (8): 523–525. Bibcode:2007NatPh...3..523B. doi:10.1038/nphys654.

This is a letter written to Nature magazine in which a Professor attempts to look at Quantum Loop Gravity over isotropic models then literally says that his answers are practically impossible.

1. Jump up ^ Ashtekar, Abhay; Corichi, Alejandro; Singh, Parampreet (2008). "Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology". Physical Review D 77 (2): 024046. arXiv:0710.3565. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77b4046A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024046.

This is an analysis paper by the same 2 of the 3 guys who wrote the above suggesting different directions that their idea might go in. It is also not a proper mathematical model that ties in Quantum Loop Gravity and doesn't adequately dismiss Wheeler DeWitt theory. We'll come back to all this stuff later.

1. Jump up ^ David Adam (14 August 2003). "The Strange story of Peter Lynds". The Guardian.

That's a Guardian article and not a scientific paper.

1. Jump up ^ Poplawski, N. J. (2012). "Nonsingular, big-bounce cosmology from spinor-torsion coupling". Physical Review D 85: 107502. arXiv:1111.4595. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..85j7502P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.107502.

Despite it's title, and I'm definitely conceding that I may be misunderstanding this here as that is pretty dense and complicated, this seems to be talking about a specific idea about how the twisting of matter added to extremely high temperatures during a "collapsing state" could theoretically bounce back instead of inflation. Though I don't understand all of the maths behind this one, it still isn't a mathematical model for the Big Bounce as it doesn't actually show, predict or even attempt to explain how the Universe can reach a collapsing state nor does it adequately dismiss inflation.

1. Jump up ^ Cai, Yi-Fu; Damien Easson; Robert Brandenberger (2012). "Towards a Nonsingular Bouncing Cosmology". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08: 020. arXiv:1206.2382. Bibcode:2012JCAP...08..020C. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/020.

This is a paper that basically says "right, forget all that other stuff but if we presumed this happened what would it look like?"

None of these are mathematical models to support the Big Bounce theory, they are generally thought experiments as papers asking what if this or what if that.

Here's the problems you have here that you don't seem to realise:

• Every single one of these papers and ideas rely on loop quantum gravity. What they didn't know writing in 2006 and the like is that loop quantum gravity is completely dead in the water if the Unrah effect is observed and numerous experiments have already claimed to have done so (though it's still at the "needs more evidence but looking promising" stage)
• None of these account for the fact that inflationary theory has almost perfectly predicted all the observations made by WMAP and the B-mode polarisation in the CMB found by a couple of experiments (though later downgraded for BICEP) and is a hugely better fit.
• All of the above rely on science that cannot be verified so for all intents and purposes may as well be magic.
• Loop quantum cosmology, which is absolutely necessary for the Big Bounce, is not yet even a model. It is not even the beginnings of a model. It is more the idea that perhaps a model might exist and if that model did then this might be some of the things that happen in it. This is ignoring the vast, overwhelming and years long evidence that supports inflation theory.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Damocles]

A

Argumentum ad hominum guys :-)

I've argued scientifically and philosophically which hasn't been countered as yet ,it seems .
The atheist has no way out except to argue for infinite regress . That seems to be his ' god' . Infinite regress is scientifically and philosophically impossible . Likewise the principle of causality comes AT the Big Bang ( cosmic while hole expansion or black hole in reverse perhaps ) . So the argument which still stands .
The universe came into being . It certainly cannot create itself in my view
So there's only one option

Oh great it is you.

Firstly, it isn't an ad hominem attack because in order for it to qualify as that then we actually had to dismiss your arguments because we said you're an idiot. Your argument was dismissed because it's wrong and you were later vaguely insulted. Insulting and ad hominem aren't the same thing.

It certainly cannot create itself in your view. That is perfectly fine. But reality doesn't give a shit what you think and will exist how it pleases.

 

[Damocles]

I wouldnt leave. I found you very interesting and Domocles is just on the rag again.

You and him can go off and have a little wrong picnic if you like but this still doesn't make him any less wrong.