The Big Bang And The First Atom

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


I stumbled across the following video (≈ 17 min), which in animated form shows some of what science knows and doesn't know about the beginning of our universe and the formation of its elementary particles. As familiar with it as I am, I still found it pretty cool.


.............................


How do you find it?

Think the singularity sitting there before Planck time at t=0s could be God?


.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #51

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #50]

From another thread in this sub-forum:
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:26 amI just want to be clear about something, I really have little time for the silliness we often see in forums like this, the bickering, name calling, juvenility, sarcasm.
Bickering (i.e. arguing over trivialities) is fairly commonplace here. We can all play our part by striving to avoid it.

Name-calling is of course against the rules. Sensible to report any such behaviour, as over time it will otherwise only become worse.

Juvenility, I agree, can be tiresome when you wish to have a serious debate on a subject. I'm of the view that the wider audience (i.e. the many people who view threads but don't contribute) will often make up their own mind over whose argument has more merit, and so any display of juvenility from those with an opposing view than your own can only help your cause.

And sarcasm? That can be a useful debating tool in some situations (IMHO). Easily overused, of course, but not in and of itself a bad thing.

Continuing to quote you in that post:
I'm no angel myself, in the past I too have often been as guilty as anyone of this, but I'm over it, it is a waste of time for me, so if you or anyone wants to post in that way you can but I'll have nothing to say really, its actually ridiculous and adults who disagree need to start acting like adults and treat each other with respect.
While I agree with the latter point ("adults who disagree..."), I'm left with the impression that your current posting behaviour - if it's not a 'waste of time' for you - doesn't quite reach that bar that you're setting for others.

I've debated with a few people over the years where we each had great respect for one another despite us having a completely different world views.
That's good to hear. I imagine that the mutual respect came about after more than a few exchanges, though. Perhaps here you haven't given it enough time and opportunity for such respect to bloom? Could also be the chosen thread topics, or a lack of interest in seeing another's point of view (on either side). The important thing (to avoid wasting everyone's time) is to engage, listen and question. Someone who feels they have been at least listened to first will usually be more receptive to a differing view.

Your mileage may vary (as the phrase goes), so take all that just as an opinion.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #52

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 8:21 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #50]

From another thread in this sub-forum:
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:26 amI just want to be clear about something, I really have little time for the silliness we often see in forums like this, the bickering, name calling, juvenility, sarcasm.
Bickering (i.e. arguing over trivialities) is fairly commonplace here. We can all play our part by striving to avoid it.

Name-calling is of course against the rules. Sensible to report any such behaviour, as over time it will otherwise only become worse.

Juvenility, I agree, can be tiresome when you wish to have a serious debate on a subject. I'm of the view that the wider audience (i.e. the many people who view threads but don't contribute) will often make up their own mind over whose argument has more merit, and so any display of juvenility from those with an opposing view than your own can only help your cause.

And sarcasm? That can be a useful debating tool in some situations (IMHO). Easily overused, of course, but not in and of itself a bad thing.

Continuing to quote you in that post:
I'm no angel myself, in the past I too have often been as guilty as anyone of this, but I'm over it, it is a waste of time for me, so if you or anyone wants to post in that way you can but I'll have nothing to say really, its actually ridiculous and adults who disagree need to start acting like adults and treat each other with respect.
While I agree with the latter point ("adults who disagree..."), I'm left with the impression that your current posting behaviour - if it's not a 'waste of time' for you - doesn't quite reach that bar that you're setting for others.

I've debated with a few people over the years where we each had great respect for one another despite us having a completely different world views.
That's good to hear. I imagine that the mutual respect came about after more than a few exchanges, though. Perhaps here you haven't given it enough time and opportunity for such respect to bloom? Could also be the chosen thread topics, or a lack of interest in seeing another's point of view (on either side). The important thing (to avoid wasting everyone's time) is to engage, listen and question. Someone who feels they have been at least listened to first will usually be more receptive to a differing view.

Your mileage may vary (as the phrase goes), so take all that just as an opinion.
Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #53

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.



Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.

Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.

Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.

Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.

With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.

I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.

If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Sir you have ignored many of my posts or The Barbarian's posts in viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38834.
Posts that did not contained personal attacks only arguments.
Coming here and distorting the truth with "With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo," is not ok.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #54

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.



Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.

Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.

Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.

Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.

With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.

I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.

If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Sir you have ignored many of my posts or The Barbarian's posts in viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38834.
Posts that did not contained personal attacks only arguments.
Coming here and distorting the truth with "With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo," is not ok.
If I appear to ignore a post it is likely because I have nothing to say.

Now as for "real science posted" I did just that, I introduced the lecture by Barrow which you and others have "ignored" or in a few cases actually attacked Barrow without even watching the lecture.

This thread's title is exactly what Barrow talks about it is an area he has specialized in for years.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #55

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:39 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.



Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.

Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.

Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.

Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.

With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.

I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.

If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Sir you have ignored many of my posts or The Barbarian's posts in viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38834.
Posts that did not contained personal attacks only arguments.
Coming here and distorting the truth with "With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo," is not ok.
If I appear to ignore a post it is likely because I have nothing to say.

Now as for "real science posted" I did just that, I introduced the lecture by Barrow which you and others have "ignored" or in a few cases actually attacked Barrow without even watching the lecture.

This thread's title is exactly what Barrow talks about it is an area he has specialized in for years.
I watched.
He talked of expansion and inflation. Of heath death of the universe(our patch). Of possible forever inflation. Our expanding patch of inflation had a beginning but the whole network of reproducing patches need not have a beginning. Multiverse hypothesis.
Which kind of disproves god hypothesis.

Q: What is your point with his talk? :?:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #56

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:44 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:39 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.



Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.

Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.

Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.

Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.

With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.

I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.

If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Sir you have ignored many of my posts or The Barbarian's posts in viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38834.
Posts that did not contained personal attacks only arguments.
Coming here and distorting the truth with "With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo," is not ok.
If I appear to ignore a post it is likely because I have nothing to say.

Now as for "real science posted" I did just that, I introduced the lecture by Barrow which you and others have "ignored" or in a few cases actually attacked Barrow without even watching the lecture.

This thread's title is exactly what Barrow talks about it is an area he has specialized in for years.
I watched.
He talked of expansion and inflation. Of heath death of the universe(our patch). Of possible forever inflation. Our expanding patch of inflation had a beginning but the whole network of reproducing patches need not have a beginning. Multiverse hypothesis.
Which kind of disproves god hypothesis.

Q: What is your point with his talk? :?:
Its relevant to the thread's topic, a shocking idea to some and also FYI a hypothesis is not a proof or disproof, it helps if one understands the terminology that's traditionally used in discussions about science.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #57

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:35 am
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:44 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:39 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.



Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.

Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.

Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.

Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.

With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.

I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.

If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Sir you have ignored many of my posts or The Barbarian's posts in viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38834.
Posts that did not contained personal attacks only arguments.
Coming here and distorting the truth with "With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo," is not ok.
If I appear to ignore a post it is likely because I have nothing to say.

Now as for "real science posted" I did just that, I introduced the lecture by Barrow which you and others have "ignored" or in a few cases actually attacked Barrow without even watching the lecture.

This thread's title is exactly what Barrow talks about it is an area he has specialized in for years.
I watched.
He talked of expansion and inflation. Of heath death of the universe(our patch). Of possible forever inflation. Our expanding patch of inflation had a beginning but the whole network of reproducing patches need not have a beginning. Multiverse hypothesis.
Which kind of disproves god hypothesis.

Q: What is your point with his talk? :?:
Its relevant to the thread's topic, a shocking idea to some and also FYI a hypothesis is not a proof or disproof, it helps if one understands the terminology that's traditionally used in discussions about science.
What I meant is that if shown to be correct will make the hypothesis: God initiated Bing Bang go out the window.
From what I seen from physicists like Alan Guth the whole Forever Inflation-Multiverse-String hypothesis will explain the development of our pocket universe as just a mere naturalistic process akin to the development of our planet.
Christians might have to move God in the next hole if that its even possible.
Move the goal post again.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #58

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:03 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:35 am
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:44 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:39 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.



Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.

Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.

Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.

Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.

With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.

I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.

If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Sir you have ignored many of my posts or The Barbarian's posts in viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38834.
Posts that did not contained personal attacks only arguments.
Coming here and distorting the truth with "With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo," is not ok.
If I appear to ignore a post it is likely because I have nothing to say.

Now as for "real science posted" I did just that, I introduced the lecture by Barrow which you and others have "ignored" or in a few cases actually attacked Barrow without even watching the lecture.

This thread's title is exactly what Barrow talks about it is an area he has specialized in for years.
I watched.
He talked of expansion and inflation. Of heath death of the universe(our patch). Of possible forever inflation. Our expanding patch of inflation had a beginning but the whole network of reproducing patches need not have a beginning. Multiverse hypothesis.
Which kind of disproves god hypothesis.

Q: What is your point with his talk? :?:
Its relevant to the thread's topic, a shocking idea to some and also FYI a hypothesis is not a proof or disproof, it helps if one understands the terminology that's traditionally used in discussions about science.
What I meant is that if shown to be correct will make the hypothesis: God initiated Bing Bang go out the window.
From what I seen from physicists like Alan Guth the whole Forever Inflation-Multiverse-String hypothesis will explain the development of our pocket universe as just a mere naturalistic process akin to the development of our planet.
Christians might have to move God in the next hole if that its even possible.
Move the goal post again.
What exactly did John Barrow say that leads you to say "if shown to be correct will make the hypothesis: God initiated Bing Bang go out the window"?

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #59

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:16 pm

What exactly did John Barrow say that leads you to say "if shown to be correct will make the hypothesis: God initiated Bing Bang go out the window"?
I said from what I seen from physicists like Alan Guth.

Big Bang Model: we have an initial state of a dense soup of particles that were uniformly spread in all space 13.8 billions of years ago, space that was expanding.
Scientist don’t really know that the universe really began with the Big Bang and whether or not anything came before. It its somewhat unknown.

We can’t really say that the universe began as in beginning of existence but just the beginning of our local universe as a result of the implication of inflation leading to a multiverse idea.

Big Bang model describes how the universe expanded and cooled. How helium, hydrogen and lithium formed. How matter got pulled, clumped together to form stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Big Bang model does not explain what caused the expansion(where all the matter-particles from initial soup came from), only describes the aftermath of the supposed “Bang”.
Similarly how evolutionary theory does not describe the origin of life but the diversification.

Big bang model is not a theory of the bang but a theory of the aftermath of a bang: the evolution of universe from a primordial soup.

Inflation comes as a way to answer this question: what caused the expansion and the “Bang”?
Inflation takes advantage of possibility within General Relativity when combined with modern particles theory of gravitation to there being a repulsive force at very high energies(to have energy densities and negative pressures producing gravitational fields as opposed to only mass densities and positive pressure producing normal gravity).

Inflation proposes that there was a patch of repulsive gravity material existing in the early universe, which after exponentially expanded, doubling in size at every ~10power-37seconds.
In 100 doublings it could get from a patch of 10power-28cm to a small marble size region. This is supposed to have happen in just 10power-35 seconds.
This repulsive gravity material because is unstable decayed and released energy (lead to the formation of the previously mention soup of particles. This marks the end of inflation and beginning of expansion).
In any location the probability of remaining in an inflation state decreases exponentially with time while the volume of any region in inflation also growing exponentially. In most models the growth rate is faster then the decay rate. Therefore there could be no end-> eternal inflation(forever into the future but not into the past).
Whenever a piece of this inflating region decays to a more normal state produces a pocket universe that locally looks like a Big Bang. This process would go add infinitum. Our universe may be one of such pocket universes in multiverse where we have many Bangs.

Observation: One important thing is the energy density of this repulsive gravity material does not decreased when the volume in which it resides increases. The conservation of energy is not broken because as the positive energy of repulsive gravity material increases the negative energy of the gravitational field that filled the region increased as well in a negative way making possible for the total energy of our universe(possible pocket universe) to be zero.

Inflation theory combined string theory also talk of:
->Dark energy being vacuum energy(energy of nothingness) – cosmological constant.
->5 billions of years ago matter thinned enough so dark energy= vacuum energy to take over and accelerate the expansion again.
->String theory may explain the very small vacuum energy we observe because there may be huge set of vacuum like states one of which may the one that filled our pocket universe. Eternal inflation will say we may have different pocket universes with different kinds of vacuum inside them which would be determined randomly as this pocket universes break of from inflating backbone. You would have different vacuums from the set, different laws of physics and different particles depending on pocket universe while having the same laws of strig theory everywhere in all pockets.

Evidence supporting inflation:
1. Large scale uniformity of the universe(possible pocket universe)->Cosmic Background Radiation(how the universe looked when it was 400.000 old).
To get this uniformity using the evolution equations in Big Bang Theory, matter and energy needs to be moved at about 100 times the speed of light which leads to the assumptions that the uniformity was there before the soup existed. This is what made room for inflation as an explanation. Before inflation the universe was incredibly small and this made possible(was enough time) for it to get uniform without any violations. Then inflation stretched this uniformly incredible small patch the size that will later become the observable universe.

2. Flatness(in a Euclidean style) geometry problem of the universe:
Flatness in general relativity is related to its mass density Ω.
Ω = actual mass density / critical mass density(critical mass related to expansion rate).
Where Ω = 1 means flat geometry, Omega > 1 means closed geometry, Omega < 1 means open geometry.
If Ω > 1 the universe recollapses before there is any time for galaxies to form.
If Ω < 1 the universe’s density will go down too fast for galaxies to be able to have time to form.
Universe we live has an observed a density parameter Ω very close to 1(observations from Plank satelite).
The issue is the universe to be so close to critical density after 13.8 billion years of expansion, it must have been even closer at earlier stages, starting close to 1.
Inflation makes this problem go away with Ω going towards 1 exponentially fast. Therefore it could have begun(at start of inflation) at almost any value. This settles the issue why the Ω was close to 1 in the early stages of the universe.

3. Non-uniformity on small scale detected in the CBR. Inflation answers where this non-uniformities-ripples came from, mostly quantum effects/quantum fluctuation.
Inflationary models make a clear prediction for the spectrum of this fluctuations(how intensity varies with wavelength).
It also can be measured(WMAP data) and can compare the prediction with measurements.
Inflationary graph prediction matches perfectly with measurements while other models predictions do not.
Image


C: Inflation theory coupled with eternal inflation theory, string theory shows we can have our universe being determined by natural causes.
Christians might have to move God in the next hole.
Move the goal post again: God may have started the inflation process but not our pocket universe.
Q: Why bring positive evidence(like scientist try to do) and try to prove the God hypothesis when one can just forever make an argument from ignorance and God of gaps fallacy?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom

Post #60

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:34 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:16 pm

What exactly did John Barrow say that leads you to say "if shown to be correct will make the hypothesis: God initiated Bing Bang go out the window"?
I said from what I seen from physicists like Alan Guth.

Big Bang Model: we have an initial state of a dense soup of particles that were uniformly spread in all space 13.8 billions of years ago, space that was expanding.
Scientist don’t really know that the universe really began with the Big Bang and whether or not anything came before. It its somewhat unknown.

We can’t really say that the universe began as in beginning of existence but just the beginning of our local universe as a result of the implication of inflation leading to a multiverse idea.

Big Bang model describes how the universe expanded and cooled. How helium, hydrogen and lithium formed. How matter got pulled, clumped together to form stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Big Bang model does not explain what caused the expansion(where all the matter-particles from initial soup came from), only describes the aftermath of the supposed “Bang”.
Similarly how evolutionary theory does not describe the origin of life but the diversification.

Big bang model is not a theory of the bang but a theory of the aftermath of a bang: the evolution of universe from a primordial soup.

Inflation comes as a way to answer this question: what caused the expansion and the “Bang”?
Inflation takes advantage of possibility within General Relativity when combined with modern particles theory of gravitation to there being a repulsive force at very high energies(to have energy densities and negative pressures producing gravitational fields as opposed to only mass densities and positive pressure producing normal gravity).

Inflation proposes that there was a patch of repulsive gravity material existing in the early universe, which after exponentially expanded, doubling in size at every ~10power-37seconds.
In 100 doublings it could get from a patch of 10power-28cm to a small marble size region. This is supposed to have happen in just 10power-35 seconds.
This repulsive gravity material because is unstable decayed and released energy (lead to the formation of the previously mention soup of particles. This marks the end of inflation and beginning of expansion).
In any location the probability of remaining in an inflation state decreases exponentially with time while the volume of any region in inflation also growing exponentially. In most models the growth rate is faster then the decay rate. Therefore there could be no end-> eternal inflation(forever into the future but not into the past).
Whenever a piece of this inflating region decays to a more normal state produces a pocket universe that locally looks like a Big Bang. This process would go add infinitum. Our universe may be one of such pocket universes in multiverse where we have many Bangs.

Observation: One important thing is the energy density of this repulsive gravity material does not decreased when the volume in which it resides increases. The conservation of energy is not broken because as the positive energy of repulsive gravity material increases the negative energy of the gravitational field that filled the region increased as well in a negative way making possible for the total energy of our universe(possible pocket universe) to be zero.

Inflation theory combined string theory also talk of:
->Dark energy being vacuum energy(energy of nothingness) – cosmological constant.
->5 billions of years ago matter thinned enough so dark energy= vacuum energy to take over and accelerate the expansion again.
->String theory may explain the very small vacuum energy we observe because there may be huge set of vacuum like states one of which may the one that filled our pocket universe. Eternal inflation will say we may have different pocket universes with different kinds of vacuum inside them which would be determined randomly as this pocket universes break of from inflating backbone. You would have different vacuums from the set, different laws of physics and different particles depending on pocket universe while having the same laws of strig theory everywhere in all pockets.

Evidence supporting inflation:
1. Large scale uniformity of the universe(possible pocket universe)->Cosmic Background Radiation(how the universe looked when it was 400.000 old).
To get this uniformity using the evolution equations in Big Bang Theory, matter and energy needs to be moved at about 100 times the speed of light which leads to the assumptions that the uniformity was there before the soup existed. This is what made room for inflation as an explanation. Before inflation the universe was incredibly small and this made possible(was enough time) for it to get uniform without any violations. Then inflation stretched this uniformly incredible small patch the size that will later become the observable universe.

2. Flatness(in a Euclidean style) geometry problem of the universe:
Flatness in general relativity is related to its mass density Ω.
Ω = actual mass density / critical mass density(critical mass related to expansion rate).
Where Ω = 1 means flat geometry, Omega > 1 means closed geometry, Omega < 1 means open geometry.
If Ω > 1 the universe recollapses before there is any time for galaxies to form.
If Ω < 1 the universe’s density will go down too fast for galaxies to be able to have time to form.
Universe we live has an observed a density parameter Ω very close to 1(observations from Plank satelite).
The issue is the universe to be so close to critical density after 13.8 billion years of expansion, it must have been even closer at earlier stages, starting close to 1.
Inflation makes this problem go away with Ω going towards 1 exponentially fast. Therefore it could have begun(at start of inflation) at almost any value. This settles the issue why the Ω was close to 1 in the early stages of the universe.

3. Non-uniformity on small scale detected in the CBR. Inflation answers where this non-uniformities-ripples came from, mostly quantum effects/quantum fluctuation.
Inflationary models make a clear prediction for the spectrum of this fluctuations(how intensity varies with wavelength).
It also can be measured(WMAP data) and can compare the prediction with measurements.
Inflationary graph prediction matches perfectly with measurements while other models predictions do not.
Image


C: Inflation theory coupled with eternal inflation theory, string theory shows we can have our universe being determined by natural causes.
Christians might have to move God in the next hole.
Move the goal post again: God may have started the inflation process but not our pocket universe.
Q: Why bring positive evidence(like scientist try to do) and try to prove the God hypothesis when one can just forever make an argument from ignorance and God of gaps fallacy?
Again, if you want to discuss then you'll need to stop making such pleonastic posts, there are just too many points raised by your posts (note how nobody else ever seems to reply to you?)

Post Reply