Models and theories about the origins of the universe or greater cosmos.

[JohnnyP]

I am not sure I would consider it a scathing critique. It was more a strong objection from a philosophical view by a philosopher, not a scientist.

I may agree that the concept of energy is avoided in the article, as you may agree "I have to qualify what is called 'nothing'" is not nothing but is rather called energy. It is still entirely ridiculous to claim that the universe comes from nothing if something is defined as "matter" and "nothing" is defined as energy.

[seer]

First understand what a model of our universe developed by physicists and cosmologists is. You would then understand that yes they all cannot be right. In fact none of them are likely exactly right, because cosmological models are work in progress. Over time some models fail the tests, and others improve and change. You need to listen to firstfloor's reference.

That doesn't change the fact that this theory would have to violate the second law of thermodynamics, and embrace the irrational idea of infinite regression. Your link also references Guth's eternal inflationary theory, yet as Guth himself makes clear even that universe/multi-verse needs a definite beginning. There simply is no viable model that does not require a distinct creation event. No matter how much we wish otherwise...

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't change the fact that this theory would have to violate the second law of thermodynamics,

The issue of the second law of thermodynamics has been addressed in many threads in the past, and is not problem. If you want to go over it again go for it. It would also help if you would provide contemporary academic Physics references how the second law applies.

. . . and embrace the irrational idea of infinite regression.

Please provide a physics or cosmology reference how Infinite regression applies.

Your link also references Guth's eternal inflationary theory, yet as Guth himself makes clear even that universe/multi-verse needs a definite beginning. There simply is no viable model that does not require a distinct creation event. No matter how much we wish otherwise...

First I cited models that do not require a beginning that may be interpreted as a creation event, but require a greater infinite cosmos. At present your knowledge of physics and cosmology does not give you the competence to make that biased generalization. In fact based on science, NONE of the models REQUIRE a distinct creation event.

Yes, Guth proposes a greater cosmos containing multiverses, and he does not propose that this represents an absolute beginning of everything. His proposal is that the individual universe have a beginning. your misquoting him, he does not propose that the greater cosmos that contain multiverses need a definite beginning.

[seer]

The issue of the second law of thermodynamics has been addressed in many threads in the past, and is not problem. If you want to go over it again go for it. It would also help if you would provide contemporary academic Physics references how the second law applies.

Yes it has, and the only matter and energy that we know of evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium. There is no exception that we know of. Now you can assume that the matter and energy in your fictional multi-verse acts differently than matter and energy in this universe but there is no evidence that it is so or could be so. That is why perpetual motion machines are considered impossible - and this is a perpetual motion machine on a cosmic scale.

Please provide a physics or cosmology reference how Infinite regression applies.

Really, are you suggesting that it does not apply? What gave rise to our universe? And what gave rise to that? etc...

First I cited models that do not require a beginning that may be interpreted as a creation event, but require a greater infinite cosmos. At present your knowledge of physics and cosmology does not give you the competence to make that biased generalization. In fact based on science, NONE of the models REQUIRE a distinct creation event.

I only know what I read and if Guth says that even a multi-verse requires a creation even then who am I or you to argue. And Big Bang cosmology does rely on a creation event. And that is the best science that we have. There is zero evidence that matter and energy existed before this universe.

Yes, Guth proposes a greater cosmos containing multiverses, and he does not propose that this represents an absolute beginning of everything. His proposal is that the individual universe have a beginning. your misquoting him, he does not propose that the greater cosmos that contain multiverses need a definite beginning.

That is a falsehood Shuny.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

Why Physicists Can't Avoid a Creation Event:

However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkinof Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed byAlan Guthof the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflationsays that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today. This helpedto explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with eachother look the same.Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that thee quations didn't work.


"You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

The 2nd law of thermodynamics would also still be in play:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists - nothing like the one we see around us.

[shunyadragon]

Yes it has, and the only matter and energy that we know of evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium. There is no exception that we know of. Now you can assume that the matter and energy in your fictional multi-verse acts differently than matter and energy in this universe but there is no evidence that it is so or could be so. That is why perpetual motion machines are considered impossible - and this is a perpetual motion machine on a cosmic scale.

Again please quote reliable contemporary academic Physics references, and not personal layman's opinion, nor layman journalist opinions.

Really, are you suggesting that it does not apply? What gave rise to our universe? And what gave rise to that? etc...

Correct it does not apply. If you believe it does, please quote reliable contemporary academic Physics references, and not personal layman's opinion.

I only know what I read and if Guth says that even a multi-verse requires a creation even then who am I or you to argue. And Big Bang cosmology does rely on a creation event. And that is the best science that we have. There is zero evidence that matter and energy existed before this universe.

I do not want here what you say you know,I want you to quote Guth. No, the Big Bang Cosmology stops short of the beginning, which remains unknown in that model, because it cannot go any further back than the stage where matter forms into hydrogen and helium. and a little lithium.

That is a falsehood Shuny.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

Why Physicists Can't Avoid a Creation Event:

Linda Grossman is a science journalist, and expresses an opinion. SHE IS NOT A QUALIFIED SCIENTIST. She only writes a column in layman's science magazine and has absolutely no qualifications in Physics and Cosmology. Again and again, please, cite a RECENT 21st century academic physics source. Waiting . . .

[cite = http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lisa-grossman/13/97/287/]

Lisa Grossman's Overview
Current Space reporter at New Scientist
Past Blogger at Wired News
Intern at Science News
Intern at New Scientist at Reed Business Information
Education University of California, Santa Cruz
Cornell University [/cite]

Most definitely not qualified other than a BS in journalism to give a personal opinion, that's all folks . . .

The 2nd law of thermodynamics would also still be in play:

Again, please quote reliable modern academic Physics references, and not personal layman's opinion citing 50 year old references. Your source she cited is old 1966. Let's get something more current like the 21st century, and a direct reference to scientific source. This Vilenkin source objects to a bounce back universe model only and does not deal with other models.
Please note, ALL my references are contemporary, and direct citation from the scientists themselves.

[seer]

Again please quote reliable academic Physics references, and not personal layman's opinion.

What!? It is on you Shuny to show that matter and energy which evolves toward thermodynamic equilibrium in this present universe does not, or would not, in your larger multi-verse.

I do not want here what you say you know,I want you to quote Guth. No, the Big Bang Cosmology stops short of the beginning, which remains unknown in that model, because it cannot go any further back than the stage where matter forms into hydrogen and helium. and a little lithium.

Linda Grossman is a science journalist, and expresses an opinion. SHE IS NOT A QUALIFIED SCIENTIST. She only writes a column in layman's science magazine and has absolutely no qualifications in Physics and Cosmology. Again and again, please, cite an academic physics source. Waiting . . .

Again, please quote reliable academic Physics references, and not personal layman's opinion.

Absolute nonsense Shuny, this is what you always do when your fantasies are exposed. The link both references the work of Guth and quotes Vilenkin directly. And the facts is, though we do not know what came before the Big Bang there is zero evidence that matter or energy existed before that event. And if you have any actual evidence to the contrary please post it, waiting....

[shunyadragon]

I may agree that the concept of energy is avoided in the article, as you may agree "I have to qualify what is called 'nothing'" is not nothing but is rather called energy. It is still entirely ridiculous to claim that the universe comes from nothing if something is defined as "matter" and "nothing" is defined as energy.

As stated before . . .

I have to qualify what is called 'nothing.' I do not think Lawrence M. Krauss describes the 'nothing' as absolutely nothing [philosophical 'nothing.'], but something like a quantum zero state as a ground state with no time in empty space. In this dark matter and energy, momentary time and space elementary particles apparently appear and disappear.

[shunyadragon]

What!? It is on you Shuny to show that matter and energy which evolves toward thermodynamic equilibrium in this present universe does not, or would not, in your larger multi-verse.

As I said before your layman's opinion is worth nothing, still waiting for contemporary scientific references to support your personal opinion.

Where are your contemporary academic sources to support this still waiting. . . Your only source was an unqualified journalist citing old material. Again Valikin's reference to on old bounce model which is no longer accepted.

Absolute nonsense Shuny, this is what you always do when your fantasies are exposed. The link both references the work of Guth and quotes Vilenkin directly. And the facts is, though we do not know what came before the Big Bang there is zero evidence that matter or energy existed before that event. And if you have any actual evidence to the contrary please post it, waiting....

First, Logical Fallacy big time seer, you cannot use lack of evidence as support for your argument. Your selective cherry picking use of Physics and Cosmology, and layman journalist opinions, and your opinions is dishonest science. You have consistently failed to cite contemporary academic physics and cosmology to support your arguments. Still waiting. Nothing new here.

[seer]

Where are your contemporary academic sources to support this still waiting. . . Your only source was an unqualified journalist citing old material. Again Valikin's reference to on old bounce model which is no longer accepted.

Let's try again, here are the facts: Matter and energy in this universe are subject to thermodynamic equilibrium. Now do you dispute this, yes or no? If it is no, show us where this law is violated in the known universe. If it is yes, then you would have to assume that the matter and energy of your multi-verse is different from the matter and energy in this cosmos (not subject to thermodynamic equilibrium). But why should we accept that? Where is your evidence.

And don't give me your "contemporary academic sources" - your link in the OP was by a science writer in a science magazine - just like mine you hypocrite. Try being honest for once Shuny and answer the above. BTW my article was from January 2012 and quoted Vilenkin from that very week - so it is not old news.

First, Logical Fallacy big time seer, you cannot use lack of evidence as support for your argument. Your selective cherry picking use of Physics and Cosmology, and layman journalist opinions, and your opinions is dishonest science. You have consistently failed to cite contemporary academic physics and cosmology to support your arguments. Still waiting. Nothing new here.

Yet you quote Discover Magazine! And listen, I support Big Bang cosmology and the fact that we have no idea what if anything came before - that is the best science to date. If you want to pose something different like a multi-verse or the idea that matter and energy are eternal then it is ON YOU to provide the evidence. We will ALL be WAITING!

[shunyadragon]

Let's try again, here are the facts: Matter and energy in this universe are subject to thermodynamic equilibrium. Now do you dispute this, yes or no?

Only in a closed system. Only some models like the bounce model proposed a closed system and they failed. 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Even the Big Bang models are not closed systems. Neither the beginning nor the ending are defined as closed.


[quote\ And don't give me your "contemporary academic sources" - your link in the OP was by a science writer in a science magazine - just like mine you hypocrite. Try being honest for once Shuny and answer the above. BTW my article was from January 2012 and quoted Vilenkin from that very week - so it is not old news.

Yet you quote Discover Magazine! [/quote] The Discover Magazine has the Direct citations and descriptions of the original contemporary research. It does not make editorial commentary without evidence. Your reference fails on all counts. Still waiting . . . It is ok to cite magazines like Discovery and Scientific American when they are direct citations of scientific academic articles. Still waiting

And listen, I support Big Bang cosmology and the fact that we have no idea what if anything came before - that is the best science to date. If you want to pose something different like a multi-verse or the idea that matter and energy are eternal then it is ON YOU to provide the evidence. We will ALL be WAITING!

Again Big Bang Cosmology makes no conclusions on the origins. the limits are the visible research, Again it is a fallacy to claim the absence of evidence is proof of the absence of cause or beginnings. Your conclusions are unwarranted based on the information available. Lisa Grossman makes the same mistake. The lack of evidence for a specific beginning does not justify the necessity of a Creation Event when there is no evidence for anything at all. Are you willing to quote Guth directly instead of giving a muddled opinion of what he said? As far as I can see that ALL only includes seer. Still Waiting. . .

[seer]

Only in a closed system. Only some models like the bounce model proposed a closed system and they failed. 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Even the Big Bang models are not closed systems. Neither the beginning nor the ending are defined as closed.

Really this universe is not a close system? It is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Can you prove that scientifically?

The Discover Magazine has the Direct citations and descriptions of the original contemporary research. It does not make editorial commentary without evidence. Your reference fails on all counts. Still waiting . . . It is ok to cite magazines like Discovery and Scientific American when they are direct citations of scientific academic articles. Still waiting.

Again Big Bang Cosmology makes no conclusions on the origins. the limits are the visible research, Again it is a fallacy to claim the absence of evidence is proof of the absence of cause or beginnings.

Really Shuny, you are totally dishonest. If you claim that there is something MORE than this present universe then it is on you to show it.

And again from your own link:

For each of the alternatives to the Big Bang, it is easier to demonstrate the appeal of the idea than to prove that it is correctbut the experiments that could put it over the top are decades away

To date Shuny there is zero evidence that anything but this universe exists. If you have evidence to the contrary please link it.

[shunyadragon]

Really this universe is not a close system? It is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Can you prove that scientifically?

Back to square one seer, the high school basics of science. SCIENTIFIC METHODS DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING. Let's start over. Again, waiting for you to cite academic scientific sources, and quote Guth directly instead of giving a muddled inaccurate personal interpretation. Get the basics of science and logic right, and then maybe we can have a dialogue. Waiting . . .

Really Shuny, you are totally dishonest. If you claim that there is something MORE than this present universe then it is on you to show it.

Again , , , dishonest representation of me, science, and relying on a logical fallacy.

And again from your own link:

No problem with what this link has to say as a whole. The problem is you layman's misrepresentation and logical fallacies to push a biased religious agenda.

To date Shuny there is zero evidence that anything but this universe exists. If you have evidence to the contrary please link it.

I have presented the evidence of science, you have presented nothing of substance, except the opinion of an unqualified journalist. I will present more scientific references.

[seer]

Back to square one seer, the high school basics of science. SCIENTIFIC METHODS DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING. Let's start over. Again, waiting for you to cite academic scientific sources, and quote Guth directly instead of giving a muddled inaccurate personal interpretation. Get the basics of science and logic right, and then maybe we can have a dialogue. Waiting . . .

You are a deceiver. I only pointed to the article and what it said about the work Guth and Vilenkin, just like your article that pointed to the work of Steinhardt and Turok. Hypocrite!

Now answer the question Shuny - is this universe subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Yes or no?

No problem with what this link has to say as a whole. The problem is you layman's misrepresentation and logical fallacies to push a biased religious agenda.

Yes and there is zero evidence for anything existing except this universe. If that statement is bias, then just present us all with said evidence. BTW - you a layman too Shuny, in this discipline, so get off your high horse.

I have presented the evidence of science, you have presented nothing of substance, except the opinion of an unqualified journalist. I will present more scientific references.

What are you taking about? You linked a magazine article, and your own link said there was no evidence - only speculation.

[shunyadragon]

You are a deceiver. I only pointed to the article and what it said about the work Guth and Vilenkin, just like your article that pointed to the work of Steinhardt and Turok. Hypocrite!

Now answer the question Shuny - is this universe subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Yes or no?

Name calling, without providing good academic references, and appealing to logical fallacies gets you nowhere. Still waiting for you to quote Guth directly. I responded to your citation of Vilenkin and the problems with the 'bounce model' of the universe, which is old news since it was rejected decades ago.

No, the universe cannot be definitively defined as a closed system by the present evidence. Some models that described the universe as closed system, ie bounce model. as referred to by Vilenkin failed.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics can only apply to closed system.

You failed to sddress your claiming issues as 'What is proof?' in science and arguing logical fallacies.

Yes and there is zero evidence for anything existing except this universe. If that statement is bias, then just present us all with said evidence. BTW - you a layman too Shuny, in this discipline, so get off your high horse.

Appealing to a logical fallacy gets you nowhere.

What are you taking about? You linked a magazine article, and your own link said there was no evidence - only speculation.

False, you have cited nothing of substance. waiting . . .

The book, The Endless Universe is a good reference for describing the Universe as an open system that presents a valid argument. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~st...skauthors.html

Written by respected recognized academics in Physics and Math.


PAUL J. STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and on the faculty of the departments of physics and astrophysical sciences at Princeton University.

NEIL TUROK holds the Chair of Mathematical Physics in the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge University.

[seer]

No, the universe cannot be definitively defined as a closed system by the present evidence. Some models that described the universe as closed system, ie bounce model. as referred to by Vilenkin failed.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics can only apply to closed system.

So the universe we live in is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics? Science agrees with this? Where?

The book, The Endless Universe is a good reference for describing the Universe as an open system that presents a valid argument. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~st...skauthors.html

Written by respected recognized academics in Physics and Math.

Yes, and there is no evidence just speculation. From your link:

So this would be evidence, but they do not have it. And they may or may not in the future. So to this point we only have evidence for the universe we live in, and nothing else.