Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Write4U]

I think the big bang deals with a single point that became our everything (our o servable universe)

But the singularity is the only known origin of this universe, no? Else we might as well speculate about a (to us) supernatural world apart from our universe.

We know there was a big bang, we know it came from a singularity . We may deduce that all the energy produced was what we can currently observe and measure, no?

To me that presents as a mega-nova, a instantaneous mega quantum event producing all existent energy, from which our current universe evolved.

 

[exchemist]

But the singularity is the only known origin of this universe, no? Else we might as well speculate about a (to us) supernatural world apart from our universe.

We know there was a big bang, we know it came from a singularity . We may deduce that all the energy produced was what we can currently observe and measure, no?

To me that presents as a mega-nova, a instantaneous mega quantum event producing all existent energy, from which our current universe evolved.

We don't know it came from a singularity. There is evidence for an initial expansion, but an initial singularity remains an untestable hypothesis.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But the singularity is the only known origin of this universe,

This universe...this universe is our observable universe...that which evolved from what we determine to be a hot dense point however although it is speculation it is not unreasonable to conclude that although that is what our backward extrapolation of observed expansion takes us back to there is no reason not to think there would be more than the point we can arrive at.

I have only read lightly but there are various speculations that hold there is more universe than our observable universe and in what I read the most conservative estimate was that the universe is some two hundred and fifty times larger than our observable universe...I leave it to you to follow up on that as I don't recall where I read that material.

Else we might as well speculate about a (to us) supernatural world apart from out universe.

No such speculation is called for in the least.

We may deduce that all the energy produced was what we can currently observe and measure, no?

Of course that's why we call our universe the observable universe but I think opinion has it that there is much more universe than our observable universe.

To me that presents as a mega-nova

A mega nova or any nova is an explosion which is not a helpful way to view the big bang...way way to fast to fit any explosion..take the inflation stage for most purposes that "era" was instant (a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) and even now the expansion can be seen as , at the edges radiating at the speed of light... way past any explosion.

Folk hear big bang and conclude explosion but no.

all existent energy, from which our current universe evolved.

What about the energy outside our observable universe?

Do you see there is a big difference between the observable universe and the universe...we can only address our observable universe and although speculative on the one hand entertaining there is a universe past the boundary of our observable universe is not unreasonable and I think that approach is not looked at as nonsense.

I don't know maybe others are better placed to comment than either of us.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

We don't know it came from a singularity. There is evidence for an initial expansion, but an initial singularity remains an untestable hypothesis.

I understand, but my perspective is based on that provisional model. I make no scientific claim as to a definitive model.

 

[Write4U]

This universe...this universe is our observable universe...that which evolved from what we determine to be a hot dense point however although it is speculation it is not unreasonable to conclude that although that is what our backward extrapolation of observed expansion takes us back to there is no reason not to think there would be more than the point we can arrive at.

I have only read lightly but there are various speculations that hold there is more universe than our observable universe and in what I read the most conservative estimate was that the universe is some two hundred and fifty times larger than our observable universe...I leave it to you to follow up on that as I don't recall where I read that material.

What I posted was my interpretation of the current model of a singularity being the origin of this universe.

No such speculation is called for in the least.

Clearly the entire singularity model is speculative, but seems to have some testable properties. Else it would not be the current main hypothesis.

Of course that's why we call our universe the observable universe but I think opinion has it that there is much more universe than our observable universe.

I am in no way disputing that. My position is only based in the current hypothesis of the origin of this, our universe.

A mega nova or any nova is an explosion which is not a helpful way to view the big bang...way way to fast to fit any explosion..take the inflation stage for most purposes that "era" was instant (a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) and even now the expansion can be seen as , at the edges radiating at the speed of light... way past any explosion. Folk hear big bang and conclude explosion but no.

Think of what you're presenting.
An "inflationary epoch" for a trillionth, trillionth, trillionth of a second, at faster than the current speed of light limitation, creating an absolute chaotic disorder (pure energy and potential), is IMO, tantamount to a mega quantum event. And despite the protestations of "does not qualify as an explosion" . Think of an atom bomb experiencing a "quantum event" i.e. an extreme short chaotic inflationary period short of exceeding "c".

What about the energy outside our observable universe?

Would it affect us?

Do you see there is a big difference between the observable universe and the universe...we can only address our observable universe and although speculative on the one hand entertaining there is a universe past the boundary of our observable universe is not unreasonable and I think that approach is not looked at as nonsense.

I have no position one way or another other than that it may be possible, but we just don't know.

I don't know maybe others are better placed to comment than either of us. Alex

I am in absolute agreement with you there. My post are just what seems to be logical deductions of "known or suspected" conditions on my part, but I may be ignorant of many additional fact which might present a different mindscape.

 

[paddoboy]

But the singularity is the only known origin of this universe, no? .

We don't know it came from a singularity. There is evidence for an initial expansion, but an initial singularity remains an untestable hypothesis.

All our known laws and GR, fail at the quantum/Planck level, which is why we can only go back as far as t+10-43 seconds with any sort of confidence. A singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density [physical singularity] is highly unlikely and most scientists do dismiss that [the same with BH singularities] but the singularity as defined by where our laws and GR break down is real.[mathematical singularity]

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Think of what you're presenting.

I do.

An "inflationary epoch" for a trillionth, trillionth, trillionth of a second, at faster than the current speed of light limitation, creating an absolute chaotic disorder (pure energy and potential), is IMO, tantamount to a mega quantum event.

Yes.

Think of an atom bomb experiencing a "quantum event" i.e. an extreme short chaotic inflationary period short of exceeding "c".

Well I don't know what speed the reaction proceeds at...do you have any numbers?

Would it affect us?

I would not think so.

Folk have different views on a singularity but for me I see it as a region where it is clear the maths is probably inadequate.
GR takes us so far but it is not support for this "substance" folk thinks it creates. I suspect GR must leave off at some point and quantum mechanics takes over to produce a model of reality.

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

And of course when we finally have a validated QGT, Combining that with GR, may mean some other aspect of what singularities as existing at the BB and at the core of BH's maybe.

 

[Write4U]

Well I don't know what speed the reaction proceeds at...do you have any numbers?

Does it matter? When an atom bomb experiences a quantum event @ "-c", we call that an explosion (a Big Bang). The universal inflationary (Planck) epoch occurred in a shorter time at greater speed, and that does not qualify as a Big Bang? This cannot have been an orderly event. We know the temperatures generated during that event were in the order of ;

Inflation is a period of supercooled expansion, when the temperature drops by a factor of 100,000 or so. (The exact drop is model-dependent, but in the first models it was typically from 1027 K down to 1022 K.) This relatively low temperature is maintained during the inflationary phase.

Inflation is hypothesized to have occurred somewhat later, when the universe was between perhaps 10–35 and 10–33 second old and the temperature was 1027 to 1028 K.

You might make a case the initial event was silent because there would be no medium for sound waves to travel through and make "bang".....

I believe the point is that all universal energy was released during that chaotic event, and only began to order itself as the initial chaotic energy plasma cooled and the first elements emerged from the energy field. The first evolutionary self-ordering physical patterns in spacetime geometry.

 

[paddoboy]

but for me I see it as a region where it is clear the maths is probably inadequate.
GR takes us so far but it is not support for this "substance" folk thinks it creates. I suspect GR must leave off at some point and quantum mechanics takes over to produce a model of reality.
Alex

Bingo Alex....And the way I understand that, it would mean a surface of sorts existing at the core of BH's at or below the quantum/Planck level. A conglomeration of mass, energy, spacetime, as we don't know them.
And by the same token, the BB at t+10-43 seconds is the evolution of space and time, as we know them.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And of course when we finally have a validated QGT, Combining that with GR, may mean some other aspect of what singularities as existing at the BB and at the core of BH's maybe.

My money is on a cosmic egg laid by the cosmic chicken...and as crazy as that sounds is it any less crazy than the notion of creation by an entity that pops out of eternity to create a huge universe so he can model some pets in his image.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Isn't this far more awesome and exciting then discussing some irrational, illogical, superior, infinite, mythical sky daddy!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Bingo Alex....And the way I understand that, it would mean a surface of sorts existing at the core of BH's at or below the quantum/Planck level. A conglomeration of mass, energy, spacetime, as we don't know them.
And by the same token, the BB at t+10-43 seconds is the evolution of space and time, as we know them.

So what you are saying is that god did it...well of course there must be a creator and the big bang shows how god did it all from nothing.
Well interesting you think there should be some surface in a black hole which I think is most reasonable.
Now that would be the place to send Jan for a severe crushing.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Does it matter?

Yes it matters to me...how will I reply if the check out girl casually asks in conversation?

The universal inflationary epoch occurred in a shorter time at greater speed, and that does not qualify as a big bang?

I suppose I should at this point confess I do not think the inflationary epoch will stand the test of time. It was a band aid and because it stuck people are happy with it but there must be a better solution to the problem it was used to fix.

I believe the point is that all universal energy was released during that chaotic event, and only began to order itself as the initial chaotic energy plasma cooled and the first elements emerged from the energy field. The first evolutionary self-ordering physical patterns in spacetime geometry geometry.

So you think god did as well.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

So what you are saying is that god did it...well of course there must be a creator and the big bang shows how god did it all from nothing.
Well interesting you think there should be some surface in a black hole which I think is most reasonable.
Now that would be the place to send Jan for a severe crushing.

Bad man Alex, bad!!
I'm actually with Laurence Krauss'speculation....The BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam....the quantum foam being the "nothingness" we like to define. Or at the very least the closest we can ever get to what some like to define as nothing.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Isn't this far more awesome and exciting then discussing some irrational, illogical, superior, infinite, mythical sky daddy!

Yes but nothing beats giving Jan a good crushing.

I think he still fails to accept the universe is eternal and therefore there can be no creator, along with not accepting that a phydeaux ( an interesting creature in its own right) evolved into a whale even through he presented perhaps the best video to show the progression that scientists put together from careful analysis of the fossil record.

I wish there was a video showing the evolution from fish to humans particularly giving great emphasis to the common ancestor shared by apes and humans...we are so privelledged to have science providing real answers..you know if it were not for science we probably still would not know where the Sun went at night.

I hope you are keeping well... don't lick any surfaces in the supper màrket...that's what I miss most.

 

[paddoboy]

I suppose I should at this point confess I do not think the inflationary epoch will stand the test of time. It was a band aid and because it stuck people are happy with it but there must be a better solution to the problem it was used to fix.

Possibly....DM was also a band aid solution. But both do explain many things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

[Write4U]

Bingo Alex....And the way I understand that, it would mean a surface of sorts existing at the core of BH's at or below the quantum/Planck level. A conglomeration of mass, energy, spacetime, as we don't know them.

IMO, we do know it; "a purely energetic state is the only state which is compressible into a singularity, and when released it has the potential to create spacetime and matter via E = Mc^2

And by the same token, the BB at t+10-43 seconds is the evolution of space and time, as we know them.

Right, but before evolution can take place there has to be an emergent fundament pattern which is able to evolve. That fundamental chaotic compressible pattern can only be "energy" from which spacetime and matter emerged and subsequently evolved into our present universe, no?

I firmly believe that there never was an "irreducible complexity". It had to have started from a singular energetic origin. Energy seems the perfect candidate, and mathematical functions offer the perfect processing abilities.

( the problem with Theism is that the singular origin of a God has the fatal flaw of irreducible complexity with "creative intent")

Follow the universal evolutionary chart in post# 1571. This looks eminently logical to me.

We can deduce that the ground state temperature of pure energy is 1032K. Can we work with that?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Bad man Alex, bad!!

I'm actually with Laurence Krauss'speculation....The BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam....the quantum foam being the "nothingness" we like to define. Or at the very least the closest we can ever get to what some like to define as nothing.

Yes.
I refuse to call it nothing however...nothing actually can not exist...also what I don't like is the impression that can be easily drawn that this quantum foam some how grew...it can only change from one state to another... be it bath salts to suds in the bath ..what goes in comes out...he has only selected nothing to make the subject interesting so as to sell a book and I condemn any attempt to make science interesting cause if you do they will make tv reality shows and I don't want that.

That's it god was having a bath and created the quantum foam...creationist science can keep up after all.

But I agree nothing is really something.

All evidence to show that the universe in some sense is eternal and requires no creator...yee-haw yee-haw yee-haw and we say this in rememberance of those who were crushed attempting to reach enlightenment.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Possibly....DM was also a band aid solution. But both do explain many things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Yes but that is the beauty of science it can evolve and if a better model gets up and no one gets excommunicated and you don't have to wear red costumes and little slippers and carry around a tool of execution symbolic of astrology to boot.

Getting real bored here I finally cobbled together an old imaging rig having left important gear for my main rig in the city but the clouds will no go...

Alex