Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 14:42 (3902 days ago) @ David Turell

A arXiv article severely refuting Stenger's book's cosmology is available from Luke Barnes, a true cosmologist, who calls Stenger's work "sophomorphic". George, who knows math way better than I do, should review the massive objections. There is a marvelous takedown of Stenger's something-from-nothing argument Pages 64-71:-The claim regarding a universe coming from nothing is either nonsensical or a nonexplanation.If we use the dictionary definition of `nothing' | not anything | then a universe coming from nothing is as impossible as a universe created by a married bachelor. Nothing is not a type of thing, and thus has no properties. If you're talking about something from which a universe can come, then you aren't talking about nothing. `Nothing' has no charge in the same sense that the C-major scale has no charge | it doesn't have the property at all.
Alternatively, one could claim that the universe could have come from nothing by creatively redefining `nothing'. `Nothing' must become a type of something, a something with the rather spectacular property of being able to create the entire known universe. It's an odd thing to call `nothing' | I wouldn't complain if I got one for Christmas. The charge neutrality of our universe then follows from the charge neutrality of `nothing'. The charge neutrality of
whatever `nothing' happens to be is simply assumed.The claim regarding a universe coming from nothing is either nonsensical or a nonexplanation.
If we use the dictionary denition of `nothing' | not anything | then a universe
coming from nothing is as impossible as a universe created by a married bachelor. Nothing is not a type of thing, and thus has no properties. If you're talking about something from which a universe can come, then you aren't talking about nothing. `Nothing' has no charge in the same sense that the C-major scale has no charge | it doesn't have the property at all. Alternatively, one could claim that the universe could have come from nothing by creatively
redening `nothing'. `Nothing' must become a type of something, a something with the rather spectacular property of being able to create the entire known universe. It's an odd thing to call `nothing' | I wouldn't complain if I got one for Christmas. The charge neutrality of our universe then follows from the charge neutrality of `nothing'. The charge neutrality of whatever `nothing' happens to be is simply assumed."-http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf-"Hence, the expansion rate of the universe one second after the big bang must be fine-tuned to one part in 1016. Hawking (1988) notes that inflation, if it happened, would explain why the expansion rate was so close to critical. Stenger then tries to show how that comes about".-"The fractional rate of expansion of the universe is called the Hubble parameter.
. . . [T]he age of the universe is given by the reciprocal of the Hubble parameter.. . . t wouldn't matter much whether the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or 12.7 or 14.7, so it is hardly fine-tuned. If the universe were only 1.37 billion years old, then life on Earth or elsewhere would not yet have formed; but it might eventually. -"If the universe were 137 billion years old, life may have long ago died away; but it still could have happened. Once again, the apologists' blinkered perspective causes them to look at our current universe and assume that this is the only universe that could have life, and that carbon-based life is the only possible form of life. In any case, it is clear that the expansion rate of the universe is not fine-tuned to one part in a hundred thousand million million". [Foft 203-4] This is sophomorically wrong. The fine-tuning of the expansion rate relates to Hi, not H0. They are not equal since H changes with time, and H0 does not appear in Equation (19). It is the initial condition that needs to be fine-tuned, not the value today. No one is claiming that the expansion rate today is fine-tuned to 1016, much less that the age of the universe is fine-tuned. In fact, the age of the universe is part of the problem: as Hawking says, if Hi one second after the big bang were different by one part in a hundred thousand million million", the universe would have recollapsed before it reached 13.7 billion years old. Note that Stenger's explanation has nothing to do with inflation, so he is not expounding Hawking's solution, he is contradicting it." (My bold)