Cosmologic philosophy: Big Bang or not? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 06, 2022, 20:10 (779 days ago) @ David Turell

The universe contains enormous energy and heat. Reversing expansion of the universe backward must lead to a point of enormous power, a singularity from Einstein's general relativity theory. Fred Hoyle, who poopooed the idea, gave it a silly name the 'Big Bang'. A commentary on its meaning:

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/efforts-to-resist-the-big-bang-and-its-implications-f...

"Sandage explained the big bang theory’s religious implications:

"Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural event. There is no way that this could have been predicted within the realm of physics as we know it…science, until recently, has concerned itself not with primary causes but, essentially, with secondary causes. What has happened in the last fifty years is a remarkable event within astronomy and astrophysics. By looking up at the sky, some astronomers have come to the belief that there is evidence for a “creation event.”

"Physicist Robert Jastrow described the ramifications of the evidence for a beginning in ever starker terms:

"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth...For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

(There follow a discussion of alternate theories trying to avoid the BB, such as a universe in cycles, multiple string-landscape universes, etc.)

"The hope that such universe-creating mechanisms could bypass a cosmic beginning came to a crashing end due to a theorem developed by physicists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem states that any universe that has been expanding, on average, throughout its history must have had an absolute beginning. This constraint applies to inflationary, string landscape, and any other plausible model that could possibly generate our universe. The theorem’s conclusiveness was best explained by Vilenkin:

"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. (my bold)

"In quantum cosmology, a more complex expression known as the Wheeler-Dewitt equation is derived, and it can be solved to generate a universal wave function. This function, in like manner, yields the probability for a universe appearing with particular gravitational and mass properties. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Laurence Krauss have asserted that the mathematics behind solving the wave function demonstrate how our universe did not necessarily have a beginning, and they argue that our universe could have appeared from “nothing.” Yet both of these claims are incorrect.

"With regard to the first claim, Hawking solved the wave function using a mathematical trick where the time variable was replaced with imaginary time. The exact details are not crucial to understand. This substitution not only enabled him to solve the wave function, but it also eliminated the beginning of time in his analysis because the original time variable was replaced. In describing his work, Hawking declared that he had eliminated the need for God to explain the origin of the universe:

***

"In reality, Hawking’s mathematical trick altered the equations in such a way as to disassociate the new time variable from anything real6⁠ in the physical universe.⁠ More importantly, at the end of his calculation, he transformed back into real time, at which point the beginning of the universe reemerged. Hawking even admitted this point:⁠

"When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities…In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.

"His boast about eliminating the need for God is entirely duplicitous.

"With regard to the second claim, Hawking stated:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

"Krauss made a similar assertion based on the work of Alexander Vilenkin: “The laws themselves require our universe to come into existence, to develop and evolve.”

"In reality, neither Hawking’s nor Vilenkin’s research demonstrates that the universe could emerge out of nothing purely due the laws of physics. The underlying mathematics actually presuppose an already-existing universe. In other words, the “nothing” from which the models start is not a literal nothing but a universe that has already begun, albeit with zero spatial volume, after the big bang event.

***

"The cause of the universe must have existed before the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial, timeless, and immensely powerful."

Comment: Note the bold: I'm with Vilenkin. This is pure ID philosophy. Note how so-called scientists fudge equations to get rid of God.