Big Bang Birthday

Finding the CMB is 50 years old right now. Discoverd by the Bell Lab's Penzias and Wilson, it is the signature of the Big Bang. This review article covers all the questions raised by it.:- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25097-big-bang-birthday-six-mysteries-of-a-cosmic...

Post reply

2956 views

Big Bang Gravity Waves discovered-http://www.livescience.com/44135-big-bang-gravity-waves-discovered-video.html-Said to confirm inflation.-Nobel Prize stuff if true!

--
GPJ

Post reply

2800 views

George: Big Bang Gravity Waves discovered
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/44135-big-bang-gravity-waves-discovered-video.html&... 
> Said to confirm inflation.
> 
> Nobel Prize stuff if true!-I know. Being covered by Matt Strassler

Post reply

2794 views

George: Big Bang Gravity Waves discovered
> > 
> > http://www.livescience.com/44135-big-bang-gravity-waves-discovered-video.html&... > 
> > Said to confirm inflation.
> > 
> > Nobel Prize stuff if true!
> 
> I know. Being covered by Matt Strassler-More coverage:-http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/03/glimpse-universes-first-split-second-boosts-inflation-theory-Gravitational waves and conformation of inflation-"Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence for this cosmic inflation. Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the "first tremors of the Big Bang." Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140317125850.htm

Post reply

2843 views

Another very good article on the CMB discovery of gravitational waves and a combined grand unified theory of realtivity and quantum mechanics. They join here.:-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20140317

Post reply

2906 views

this article questions the idea of a singularity at the beginning:-http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/-"The modern Big Bang Theory really starts after this period of ignorance, with a burst of inflation that creates a large expanding universe, and the end of inflation which allows for the creation of the heat of the Hot Big Bang. The equations for the theory, as it currently stands, can be used to make predictions even though we don't know the precise nature of our universe's birth. Yes, a singularity often turns up in our equations when we extend them as far as they can go in the past; but a singularity of this sort is far from likely to be an aspect of nature, and instead should be interpreted as a sign of what we don't yet understand."-Basically: start?....inflation...period of intense heat... more expansion...now

Post reply

2869 views

Another multiverse guy gives his take:-"The triumph, unfortunately, is not a completely clean one. If inflation occurs, the conditions we observe in the early universe are completely natural. But is the occurrence of inflation itself completely natural?
 
"That depends. The original hope was that inflation would naturally arise as the early universe expanded and cooled, or perhaps that it would simply start somewhere (even if not everywhere) as a result of chaotically fluctuating initial conditions. But closer examination reveals that inflation itself requires a very specific starting point â conditions that, one must say, appear to be quite delicately tuned and unnatural. From this perspective, inflation by itself doesn't fully explain the early universe; it simply changes the kind of explanation we are seeking.
 
"Fortunately â maybe â there is a complication. Soon after Guth proposed inflation, the physicists Alexander Vilenkin and Andrei Linde pointed out that the process of inflation can go on forever. Instead of the inflaton energy converting into ordinary particles all throughout the universe, it can convert in some places but not others, creating localized "Big Bangs." Elsewhere inflation continues, eventually producing other separate "universes," eventually an infinite number. From an attempt to explain conditions in the single universe that we see, cosmologists end up predicting a "multiverse.""-
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/when-nature-looks-unnatural/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=edit_th_20140324&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861&_r=0

Post reply

2881 views

Great essay by Scott Aaronson who sounds like Peter Woit to me:-http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1753-"Yes, these multiverses are a perfectly fine thing to speculate about: sure they're unobservable, but so are plenty of other entities that science has forced us to accept. There are even natural reasons, within physics and cosmology, that could lead a person to speculate about each of these multiverse levels. So if you want to speculate, knock yourself out! If, however, you want me to accept the results as more than speculationâif you want me to put them on the bookshelf next to Darwin and Einsteinâthen you'll need to do more than argue that other stuff I already believe logically entails a multiverse (which I've never been sure about), or point to facts that are currently unexplained as evidence that we need a multiverse to explain their unexplainability, or claim as triumphs for your hypothesis things that don't really need the hypothesis at all, or describe implausible hypothetical scenarios that could confirm or falsify the hypothesis. Rather, you'll need to use your multiverse hypothesisâand your proposed solution to the resulting measure problemâto do something new that impresses me."

Post reply

2861 views

Certain theories may now be dead as a result of the gravity wave findings:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-finding-causes-spring-cleaning-in-physics/?&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20140326

Post reply

2841 views

It seems the big bang theory is actually 789 years old!-http://www.nature.com/news/history-a-medieval-multiverse-1.14837-Robert Grosseteste thought of it in 1225.

--
GPJ

Post reply

2890 views

George: It seems the big bang theory is actually 789 years old!
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/history-a-medieval-multiverse-1.14837
> 
> Robert Grosseteste thought of it in 1225-Yes. I saw this. Gerald Schroeder discusses Nahmanides, the Jewish Kabbalist and scholar of the Bible describing the same pattern in the 13th century. Schroeder's book is Genesis and the Big Bang

Post reply

2927 views

More theoretical discussion:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2014/04/03/gravitational-waves-reveal-the-universe-before-the-big-bang-an-interview-with-physicist-gabriele-veneziano/-It is going to need a solution to quantum gravity:-"GM: What about the theorems that say there had to be a singularityâa beginning to time?
 
"GV: You can always talk about the hypothetical big bang that should be there if you use general relativity all the way, but the fact you need to apply quantum mechanics to the theory of general relativity invalidates the arguments that there must have been a singularity. I'm not saying you can prove there was no beginning; this is still something which people have not been able to settle. What went on before inflationâif there was a singularity, if there was a beginning of timeâis up in the air. There is a certain amount of fine-tuning needed for inflation, and these initial conditions are really still very mysterious.
 
"GM: So, you're saying that we should mark the end of inflation as the big bang?
 
"GV: I would define the big bang as the moment when the temperature reaches it maximum value, right after the end of inflation. Inflation cools down the universe, but then inflation ends and the energy in the inflaton field immediately converts into heatâso-called reheating. And then the expansion makes the temperature decrease it again. So, presumably the temperature went down and up and down again. If I had to identify a special moment, I'd look at when the temperature reached its maximum value and call that the big bang.

Post reply

2959 views

More discussion from a multiverse view:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-controversy-inflation-gravitational-waves/?&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20140402

Post reply

2872 views

More commmentary with an answer to George's and dhw's points about origin of the universe:-
"4) Fourthly, a mechanism that generates universes ad infinitum must have stable characteristics that constrain its operation if it is to avoid breaking down and sputtering to a halt. In short, universe-generators have finely tuned design parameters that themselves require explanation. So postulating a universe-generator to explain away the appearance of first-order design in a single universe does not obviate the inference to design, it merely bumps it up to the next level. Avoiding an infinite regress of explanatory demands leads to the recognition of actual design terminating in an Intelligence that transcends spacetime, matter and energy, and which, existing timelessly logically prior to creating any universe or multiverse, must also therefore exist necessarily, and therefore require no further explanation of its own existence. -"(5) Fifthly and finally, as demonstrated by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin in 2003 (see further reading suggestions below), any inflationary multiverse has a beginning in the finite past: while inflationary models can, in theory, be eternal into the future, it is mathematically impossible for them to be eternal into the past. This means that the inflationary multiverse entails creation ex nihilo in precisely the same manner as the Big Bang. The universe thus manifests dependence on a transcendent reality in respect of its origin, but what is more, in virtue of the manifest absence of sufficient material causation in many aspects of its persistence as a quantum-mechanical phenomenon, the material universe also manifests dependence on a transcendent reality in respect of its operation." (my bold) - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/a_matter_of_con084001.html#sthash.Rf9lFRY8.dpuf

Post reply

2909 views

DAVID: More commentary with an answer to George's and dhw's points about origin of the universe:-"4) Fourthly, a mechanism that generates universes ad infinitum must have stable characteristics that constrain its operation if it is to avoid breaking down and sputtering to a halt. In short, universe-generators have finely tuned design parameters that themselves require explanation. So postulating a universe-generator to explain away the appearance of first-order design in a single universe does not obviate the inference to design, it merely bumps it up to the next level. Avoiding an infinite regress of explanatory demands leads to the recognition of actual design terminating in an Intelligence that transcends spacetime, matter and energy, and which, existing timelessly logically prior to creating any universe or multiverse, must also therefore exist necessarily, and therefore require no further explanation of its own existence.
 
"(5) Fifthly and finally, as demonstrated by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin in 2003 (see further reading suggestions below), any inflationary multiverse has a beginning in the finite past: while inflationary models can, in theory, be eternal into the future, it is mathematically impossible for them to be eternal into the past. This means that the inflationary multiverse entails creation ex nihilo in precisely the same manner as the Big Bang. ... (David's bold)
 
See more at:
 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/a_matter_of_con084001.html#sthash.Rf9lFRY8.dpuf-You say this answers the points George and I have made about the origin of the universe. I'm afraid it doesn't. It merely rehashes in rather grandiose style the First Cause argument by claiming that a universe-generator must also have been designed, and so to avoid an infinite regress, we must end the chain in an Intelligence that requires no further explanation. If the generator is the eternal energy you call a universal intelligence, it was NOT designed. But if God as energy doesn't break down, why should energy simply as energy break down? Stable does not have to mean intelligent. A stable but non-conscious first cause universe-generator is no less feasible than a stable conscious first cause universe-generator! Besides, when did intelligence guarantee stability?-As for the section you have bolded, obviously if universes were generated and were not eternal they had beginnings. But they were no more ex nihilo than our own, since every universe would have been preceded by the activity of the "universe-generator" (you and I have called it energy), which may or may not be intelligent.
 
The conclusion to this article is pretty staggering: "What all of this reveals, of course, is that it's intelligent design all the way through and all the way down, and that theophobic scientific materialists, once they get past knee-jerk denials, must come to terms with what is, for them, a worldview-defeating fact."-Fact?

Post reply

2824 views

dhw: You say this answers the points George and I have made about the origin of the universe. I'm afraid it doesn't. ..... If the generator is the eternal energy you call a universal intelligence, it was NOT designed. But if God as energy doesn't break down, why should energy simply as energy break down? Stable does not have to mean intelligent. A stable but non-conscious first cause universe-generator is no less feasible than a stable conscious first cause universe-generator! -The complexity of the quantum particle zoo underlying the workings of this universe, and the rules by which they work strongly suggest (remember we can't prove anything at this level of thought) a complex pattern of planning, and therefore intelligence as a source.-> 
> dhw: As for the section you have bolded, obviously if universes were generated and were not eternal they had beginnings. But they were no more ex nihilo than our own, since every universe would have been preceded by the activity of the "universe-generator" (you and I have called it energy), which may or may not be intelligent.-They are not ex nihilo but started by an eternal source
> 
> dhw:The conclusion to this article is pretty staggering: "What all of this reveals, of course, is that it's intelligent design all the way through and all the way down, and that theophobic scientific materialists, once they get past knee-jerk denials, must come to terms with what is, for them, a worldview-defeating fact."
> 
> Fact?-Yes, overstated, but a very logical conclusion.

Post reply

2802 views

DHW: ..... If the generator is the eternal energy you call a universal intelligence, it was NOT designed. But if God as energy doesn't break down, why should energy simply as energy break down? Stable does not have to mean intelligent. A stable but non-conscious first cause universe-generator is no less feasible than a stable conscious first cause universe-generator! -DAVID: The complexity of the quantum particle zoo underlying the workings of this universe, and the rules by which they work strongly suggest (remember we can't prove anything at this level of thought) a complex pattern of planning, and therefore intelligence as a source.-I have criticized the passage above for what seems to me to be faulty reasoning. You have substituted your own argument, which is not the point I was dealing with.
 
dhw: As for the section you have bolded, obviously if universes were generated and were not eternal they had beginnings. But they were no more ex nihilo than our own, since every universe would have been preceded by the activity of the "universe-generator" (you and I have called it energy), which may or may not be intelligent.
DAVID: They are not ex nihilo but started by an eternal source.-Precisely the reason why I have criticized this passage in the article you recommended. The author shares your belief that the source is a designing god, and so I have questioned his use of "ex nihilo".-dhw: The conclusion to this article is pretty staggering: "What all of this reveals, of course, is that it's intelligent design all the way through and all the way down, and that theophobic scientific materialists, once they get past knee-jerk denials, must come to terms with what is, for them, a worldview-defeating fact. 
Fact?
DAVID: Yes, overstated, but a very logical conclusion.-Not a good idea to defend an article with so many flaws in its reasoning and such a manifestly unscientific conclusion! How would you respond if Dawkins claimed that his conclusions were a fact?

Post reply

2786 views

DHW: ..... If the generator is the eternal energy you call a universal intelligence, it was NOT designed. But if God as energy doesn't break down, why should energy simply as energy break down? Stable does not have to mean intelligent. A stable but non-conscious first cause universe-generator is no less feasible than a stable conscious first cause universe-generator! 
> 
> DAVID: The complexity of the quantum particle zoo underlying the workings of this universe, and the rules by which they work strongly suggest (remember we can't prove anything at this level of thought) a complex pattern of planning, and therefore intelligence as a source.
> 
> dhw:I have criticized the passage above for what seems to me to be faulty reasoning. You have substituted your own argument, which is not the point I was dealing with.-We are at cross-purposes. You are substituting your view of the possibility of eternal energy without intelligence into the discussion. The eternal stable energy to create the complexity we have requires intelligence. We are back to our old battle. I'm simply looking at reality and extrapolating backward in time. Just like not being able to get something from nothing, you can't get a working complexity with many component parts without intelligence. Otherwise we are back to enormous odds for chance.

Post reply

2778 views

DHW: ..... If the generator is the eternal energy you call a universal intelligence, it was NOT designed. But if God as energy doesn't break down, why should energy simply as energy break down? Stable does not have to mean intelligent. A stable but non-conscious first cause universe-generator is no less feasible than a stable conscious first cause universe-generator! -DAVID: The complexity of the quantum particle zoo underlying the workings of this universe, and the rules by which they work strongly suggest (remember we can't prove anything at this level of thought) a complex pattern of planning, and therefore intelligence as a source.-dhw: I have criticized the passage above for what seems to me to be faulty reasoning. You have substituted your own argument, which is not the point I was dealing with.-DAVID: We are at cross-purposes. You are substituting your view of the possibility of eternal energy without intelligence into the discussion. The eternal stable energy to create the complexity we have requires intelligence. We are back to our old battle. I'm simply looking at reality and extrapolating backward in time. Just like not being able to get something from nothing, you can't get a working complexity with many component parts without intelligence. Otherwise we are back to enormous odds for chance.-We are indeed completely at cross purposes. You recommended an article which I thought was badly argued. In particular I criticized the author's equation of stability with intelligence (which focused on the avoidance of a breakdown, not on complexity),and your response was to talk about the complexity of the quantum particle zoo, which was not the target of my criticism. I also complained about the misuse of 'ex nihilo' and your comment supported my complaint. Finally I objected to the author's use of "fact" to describe his opinion ... and you agreed this was "overstated". We are not "back to our old battle", because I have no quarrel with the argument that "working complexity with many component parts" suggests design. I ended my post: "It is not a good idea to defend an article with so many flaws in its reasoning and such a manifestly unscientific conclusion! How would you respond if Dawkins claimed that his conclusions were a fact?" Pax?

Post reply

2839 views


> DAVID: We are at cross-purposes. -> 
> dhw: We are indeed completely at cross purposes. ..... How would you respond if Dawkins claimed that his conclusions were a fact?" Pax?-Pax.

Post reply

2848 views

Several approaches at the South Pole and elsewhere:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829181.900-south-pole-scopes-witnessing-the-universes-birth.html

Post reply

2729 views

Recent calculations of BB conditions at the start: -"When the universe was less than one microsecond old and more than one trillion degrees, it transformed from a plasma of quarks and gluons into bound states of quarks - also known as protons and neutrons, the fundamental building blocks of ordinary matter that make up most of the visible universe-"Below this temperature, quarks and gluons are confined, existing only in hadronic bound states such as the familiar proton and neutron. Above this temperature, these bound states cease to exist and quarks and gluons instead form plasma, which is strongly coupled near the transition and coupled more and more weakly as the temperature increases."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-08-conditions-birth-universe.html#jCp

Post reply

2714 views

Note the big "if", and then the big 'if' conclusion.:-"So although we may not be able to directly observe any of these other universes, their existence seems to be logically required "if" our model building is on the right track. The anthropic cosmological principle is not something derivable from inside Big Bang theory at all. It merely represents a selection effect that we apply to all the possible universes in the multiverse to find the one we actually live in!"-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/the-multiverse-explained-or-not_b_5196433.html?utm_hp_ref=science-How can folks think like this?

Post reply

2816 views

Sean Carroll now says no multiverse:-"His starting point was the idea that quantum fluctuations are dependent on interactions with an external system or particle, known as an "observer" ... a familiar concept in quantum mechanics. When he applied this thinking to our view of inflation, it changed everything. The inflaton must have preceded all the other particles in the very early universe. That means it was the only type of particle that existed, so there would have been nothing "external" for inflatons to interact with, says Carroll. In this case, the inflaton would not have undergone quantum fluctuations.-"This "quiet" state lasted until the inflatons decayed into different types of ordinary particles, which could then interact with each other. "Then those quantum fluctuations finally come to life," says Carroll ... allowing them to fulfil their crucial role of seeding the cosmic web but removing the need for an infinitely budding multiverse."-He changed his mind.-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229692.600-quantum-twist-could-kill-off-the-multiverse.html?full=true#.U3YKpNIU

Post reply

2792 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Big Bang Birthday (Introduction)