BGV theorem

[shunyadragon]

Hawking considers the multiverse finite, one of an infinite number of multiverses within a Quantum World.

Personally, I vote for a reasonable foundation in science for the existence of the multi verse, and the Quantum World that contains them, and beyond that it gets foggy.

[shunyadragon]

Citations, please?

Blessings,
Lee

I believe I did. I am concerned about your reading skills as to whether you have read Vilenkin, Guth, and Borde references and papers, but nonetheless.



If this is not enough there are not a number of sources where Vilenkin, Guth and Borde discuss multi verses.

[shunyadragon]

I meant there is a proof, a theorem in this area of discussion.


I'm not sure what you mean here.


Yes, though the one universe we know of is expanding without limit.


Well, again, the BGV theorem provides a restriction on possible universe scenarios, it is not in itself a scenario.

Blessings,
Lee

You should no better, but I guess not, the authors of the bgv theorem did not propose a 'proof,' and you are deluded if you think they would remotely justify a Kalam argument.

[lee_merrill]

Your asking the wrong person. I personally do not believe that either expansion to the Quantum nothing is possible, or contraction where the point that dark matter no longer prevents contraction. Steinhardt could better answer your question.

Well, I shall no longer believe your claims if you cannot show how dark energy will be erased.

Hawking also believed that contraction is possible without time reversal, and explained it in the following summary:

So Hawking had evidence for his view, and now I shall wonder why most scientists believe in the Big Bang cosmology.

They pretty much all believe that they formed from singularities formed in the Quantum World of the multiverse.

Well, they don't, actually, the Big Bang is the prevailing view.

So, no consensus with the multiverse...

... the authors of the bgv theorem did not propose a 'proof,' and you are deluded if you think they would remotely justify a Kalam argument.

Yet the theorem is a proof, and if the conditions and assumptions are met, it proves a beginning.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, I shall no longer believe your claims if you cannot show how dark energy will be erased.

I shall no longer believe your claims if you cannot show where Hawkins is wrong. Again read Hawkins work carefully he does not erase dark matter.

Neither of us are competent to fully explain that Hawkins is wrong, but unfortunately you have a religious agenda, and think you know more than Velinkin, Guth, Borde, and Hawkins are wrong and selectively cite the bgv work to justify your agenda.

So Hawking had evidence for his view, and now I shall wonder why most scientists believe in the Big Bang cosmology.

Hawkin's view includes Big Bang cosmology, Can you read?!?!?!!?

Well, they don't, actually, the Big Bang is the prevailing view.
So, no consensus with the multiverse...

The dominant view is the existence of the multiverse, just as not all scientists support the Big Bang. So what?!?!?!

Yet the theorem is a proof, and if the conditions and assumptions are met, it proves a beginning.

Blessings,
Lee

Most scientists already believed in a temporal beginning based on Quantum Mechanics at least since Hawking. Big hairy deal! So what?

[lee_merrill]

I shall no longer believe your claims if you cannot show where Hawkins is wrong. Again read Hawkins work carefully he does not erase dark matter.

Well, we're here to discuss the BGV theorem! If you wish to discuss Hawking's views, you are welcome to create another thread.

Hawkin's view includes Big Bang cosmology, Can you read?!?!?!!?

Yes, but he extends it, these extensions are not part of the generally-accepted Big Bang view.

The dominant view is the existence of the multiverse...

No, there is no consensus on the multiverse, as cited above.

Most scientists already believed in a temporal beginning based on Quantum Mechanics at least since Hawking. Big hairy deal! So what?

So the BGV theorem is another indication that the universe had a beginning...

Blessings,
Lee

[Tassman]

Well, we're here to discuss the BGV theorem! If you wish to discuss Hawking's views, you are welcome to create another thread.

Hawking was an eminent physicist and his views are relevant to this discussion.

Yes, but he extends it, these extensions are not part of the generally-accepted Big Bang view.

There is no settled science re Big Bang theory.

No, there is no consensus on the multiverse, as cited above.

True, but it remains viable as an hypothesis.

https://www.space.com/18811-multiple...-theories.html

So the BGV theorem is another indication that the universe had a beginning...

It is an indication that this universe had a beginning.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=lee_merrill;602031]Well, we're here to discuss the BGV theorem! If you wish to discuss Hawking's views, you are welcome to create another thread.

I do not believe that you can you can arbitrarily exclude Hawking and others from the dialogue, because Velinkin and the authors frequently cite Hawking and others in their bvg theorem.

Yes, but he extends it, these extensions are not part of the generally-accepted Big Bang view.

Not clear, Hawking clearly supports the beginning of the beginning of universes, and the singularity, and is probably one of the first to write a comprehensive paper on the singularity. It is more than apparent that Hawking supported both a beginning and a cyclic nature of universes.

No, there is no consensus on the multiverse, as cited above.

I claim dominant view and I stand by that claim, I will cite a list of those that endorse some form of multiverse. This where the dominant cutting edge of research in physics and cosmology is now. I will add a short list of those that oppose any sort of multiverse.

So the BGV theorem is another indication that the universe had a beginning...

Blessings,
Lee

According to the authors a temporal beginning in a greater multiverse cosmos.

[lee_merrill]

There is no settled science re Big Bang theory.

Some may wish it to be so, but the Big Bang has been verified in multiple ways, this is why scientists say the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

It is an indication that this universe had a beginning.

Yes, agreed.

Best wishes,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I claim dominant view and I stand by that claim, I will cite a list of those that endorse some form of multiverse. This where the dominant cutting edge of research in physics and cosmology is now. I will add a short list of those that oppose any sort of multiverse.

Source: Space.com

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Source: Space.com

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

True, but does not address the problem you have of the multiverse being the dominant 'leading' view among the physicists and cosmologists.

[JimL]

Source: Space.com

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, we do not know that the universe began as a singularity, that notion was simply hypothetical, i.e. the idea that if we could reverse the inflation process then the universe would get smaller and smaller until it reached infinite size, that is a singularity, but there is nothing that actually backs that hypotheses up, nor do most phycisists take that view.

[shunyadragon]

[JimL]

I lean toward a multiverse as well. It makes sense. Highly unlikely that it happened only once, or that it was created out of nothing, so it probably happens all the time in the same way that everything inside this universe happens all the time.

[Tassman]

Some may wish it to be so, but the Big Bang has been verified in multiple ways, this is why scientists say the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

This universe is generally thought to be 13.8 billion years old. But, as shunya keeps telling you,