Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[shunyadragon]

But that doesn't invalidate that the BB made predictions that were empirically validated. You are setting up a false equivalence between the multiverse and BB theory.

As far as theories go, BB has the most data supporting it. Even if they can't go past the Planck era, this is the ONLY part that is speculative as opposed to the whole theory being speculative.

I am just glad that Carp and I agree. Not because I want to be correct (I know that I am), but it prevents people like Shuny from claiming that my opinions are based on my religious agenda.

I do not think you know more that the physicists and cosmologists who actually have the qualifications and do the work. Steinhardt supports the theory of cyclic universe, and I believe he has as god an argument for his view than those that support the Big Bang singularity. He basically uses the same evidence and math available today for the other possible models.



According to Steinhrdt the universe did not have a beginning, which is a possibility, and the Big Bang Theory is not on as firm a ground as you claim.

[carpedm9587]

I do not think you know more that the physicists and cosmologists who actually have the qualifications and do the work. Steinhardt supports the theory of cyclic universe, and I believe he has as god an argument for his view than those that support the Big Bang singularity. He basically uses the same evidence and math available today for the other possible models.



According to Steinhrdt the universe did not have a beginning, which is a possibility, and the Big Bang Theory is not on as firm a ground as you claim.

Can you point out exactly which part of this reference you think suggests the Big Bang may NOT have happened...?

[element771]

I do not think you know more that the physicists and cosmologists who actually have the qualifications and do the work. Steinhardt supports the theory of cyclic universe, and I believe he has as god an argument for his view than those that support the Big Bang singularity. He basically uses the same evidence and math available today for the other possible models.

1. While I am not a cosmologist, my expertise is in thermodynamics which is applicable as entropy is a big issue with cyclic universes. This means that I am more qualified than you and can determine if a theory is solid or based on speculative ideas.

2. You, on the other hand, can't even comprehend what makes a hypothesis actually valid nor can you argue your points (which is why you argue via block quote).

3. You are specifically looking for scientific theories that fit your narrative instead of admitting that, in the present, the BB theory is still the most widely supported and has been for over 50 years.

4. All of these cyclic universe models, multiverse models, etc are based on 2-3 levels of speculation. Some cannot even be empirically verified which means that they are not science.

[shunyadragon]

1. While I am not a cosmologist, my expertise is in thermodynamics which is applicable as entropy is a big issue with cyclic universes. This means that I am more qualified than you and can determine if a theory is solid or based on speculative ideas.

2. You, on the other hand, can't even comprehend what makes a hypothesis actually valid nor can you argue your points (which is why you argue via block quote).

3. You are specifically looking for scientific theories that fit your narrative instead of admitting that, in the present, the BB theory is still the most widely supported and has been for over 50 years.

4. All of these cyclic universe models, multiverse models, etc are based on 2-3 levels of speculation. Some cannot even be empirically verified which means that they are not science.

I am not referring to myself as an authority, but other cosmologists who are more qualified than you concerning which theories and hypothesis are valid and possible, and the degree of certainty that these theories and hypothesis are potentially true. I consider Steinhardt far far more qualified than you and without a religious agenda.

[element771]

I am not referring to myself as an authority, but other cosmologists who are more qualified than you concerning which theories and hypothesis are valid and possible, and the degree of certainty that these theories and hypothesis are potentially true. I consider Steinhardt far far more qualified than you and without a religious agenda.

I don't have a religious agenda moron.

Also, by your own admission you don't have any knowledge base to judge what is solid or what is not. SO, you are choosing based on what you want to be the case. You are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing everyone of doing. I give scientific reasons that I am skeptical, you quote blocks of text. You also lie about what articles say to promote your agenda.

[shunyadragon]

They are welcome to disagree. The definition of "valid" in the context of "scientific hypothesis" is fairly well established. For the rest, I think I have been fairly clear about my use of "proven" in this context.

One thing I want to make clear is I resort to the view of scientists far better qualified than any of us, and Steinhardt, as referenced, considers these theories and hypothesis as valid despite limitations, and clearly outlines the weaknesses in the Big Bang theory that both element 771 and you claim are almost proven(?).

Steinhardt clearly supports the cyclic universe without a beginning, and considers it a valid theory regardless of apparent weakness which it shares with all theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe and or our greater cosmos.

[shunyadragon]

Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK also support the theory (hypothesis) for a cyclic universe.

Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/cyclic-universe-could-explain-cosmological-constant/

Cyclic universe could explain cosmological constant

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

I do not know enough about the Plank epoch to respond intelligently. I do agree that there are a lot of speculative models out there. I think they certainly serve a purpose. They simply don't rise to the level of "scientific hypothesis" until there is a way to experimentally test/verify them.

By this standard then neither does the BB theory rise to the level of "scientific hypothesis", because there is no way to test what occurred during the Planck Epoch. The BB is merely an assumption. It's not something that can be proven from any fundamental laws of physics, because those laws are non-existent during the Planck Epoch.

[carpedm9587]

One thing I want to make clear is I resort to the view of scientists far better qualified than any of us, and Steinhardt, as referenced, considers these theories and hypothesis as valid despite limitations, and clearly outlines the weaknesses in the Big Bang theory that both element 771 and you claim are almost proven(?).

Steinhardt clearly supports the cyclic universe without a beginning, and considers it a valid theory regardless of apparent weakness which it shares with all theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe and or our greater cosmos.

As far as I know, the cyclic universe still has a "big bang." It just has many of them. I'm looking for the place where anyone is saying that an event we call the "big bang" is not part of our universe's past. As best I can tell, the evidence for space/time, as we experience it, tracing back to the explosion of a singularity, is as well established as anything science has established. It has been empirically affirmed over and over again. I do not see anything in any of your posts that says otherwise, and I'm asking you to show me where you are seeing that claim in your quoted sources.

[carpedm9587]

By this standard then neither does the BB theory rise to the level of "scientific hypothesis", because there is no way to test what occurred during the Planck Epoch. The BB is merely an assumption. It's not something that can be proven from any fundamental laws of physics, because those laws are non-existent during the Planck Epoch.

It is possible I am mistaken; I am not an astrophysicist. My understanding of the current state of the BB theory is that we know the existing space/time continuum originated in a singularity - we can see backwards to the explosion of that singularity and see it's impact on the modern structure of the universe. What we cannot see is how that singularity arose.

That being said, I am not an expert on the Planck Epoch and do not know enough to take a position. Perhaps I will have time to educate myself a bit after the next two weeks.

[element771]

One thing I want to make clear is I resort to the view of scientists far better qualified than any of us, and Steinhardt, as referenced, considers these theories and hypothesis as valid despite limitations, and clearly outlines the weaknesses in the Big Bang theory that both element 771 and you claim are almost proven(?).

This is not accurate.

You don't resort to the view of scientists...you pick which scientists you want to agree with. You cannot explain the science behind why you agree with them. This means that you like their ideas better because of other reasons. You choose based on personal preference. You do what you accuse everyone one who doesn't agree with you of doing.

[element771]

By this standard then neither does the BB theory rise to the level of "scientific hypothesis", because there is no way to test what occurred during the Planck Epoch. The BB is merely an assumption. It's not something that can be proven from any fundamental laws of physics, because those laws are non-existent during the Planck Epoch.

This is not accurate at all. Again, the BB theory has made predictions that have been empirically verified. These predictions could have been falsified by the data. This is the very definition of a scientific hypothesis.

[shunyadragon]

As far as I know, the cyclic universe still has a "big bang." It just has many of them. I'm looking for the place where anyone is saying that an event we call the "big bang" is not part of our universe's past. As best I can tell, the evidence for space/time, as we experience it, tracing back to the explosion of a singularity, is as well established as anything science has established. It has been empirically affirmed over and over again. I do not see anything in any of your posts that says otherwise, and I'm asking you to show me where you are seeing that claim in your quoted sources.

The point is that the cyclic universe does not have a definitive beginning.

[shunyadragon]

This is not accurate.

You don't resort to the view of scientists...you pick which scientists you want to agree with. You cannot explain the science behind why you agree with them. This means that you like their ideas better because of other reasons. You choose based on personal preference. You do what you accuse everyone one who doesn't agree with you of doing.

I presented Steinhardt and Turok not because I necessarily agreed with them, but to balance your extreme assumptions as to what the 'current position of scientists concerning the 'beginning' of our universe. I do not hold to any particular model for the beginning of our universe nor necessarily the multiverse. I only hold to the current view of science that there no known conclusive beginning of anything concerning our universe nor the greater cosmos. It simple remains an open question, which likely can never be answered by science. The findings of science cannot be used to support a theological argument for the philosophical/theological beliefs for a beginning of our universe, nor our physical existence.

[carpedm9587]

The point is that the cyclic universe does not have a definitive beginning.

That may have been your point, Shuny, and I accept it as such, but your language to this point has been pretty opaque. As I go back and reread your posts, I see several places where you question the Big Bang. The impression left was that you were questioning that science has shown such an event has actually happened.

I think the confusion may be around the term "beginning." Our current space/time continuum has clearly been shown to have originated in the Big Bang. I am comfortable with the scientific evidence for this. As has been noted, it is the original of the singularity that is unknown. A cyclic universe is certainly a possible explanation. Indeed, it is the one possibility that has a hypothetical approach to falsifying it, and it is the one theory I would be comfortable calling a "scientific hypothesis." Theoretically, if the universe is indeed cycling, we should be able to model that and determine what factors would cause the universe to begin to collapse instead of continue to expand. If we can establish those factors exist and predict what they should be doing at this point in the universe's lifecycle, it would be evidence for a cyclic universe. It does not seem to me that we necessarily need to be able to see past the Planck Epoch to do that exploration.

That is the only theory, however, AFAIK, open to that possible avenue of exploration - at least at this time.