What Is Man?

[firstfloor]

See FF, this would be physical evidence for the inflation theory. Its too bad that it probably was wrong:

http://blog.physicsworld.com/2014/04...-of-inflation/

[seer]

It’s not wrong yet, just not right. It is work in progress.
http://blog.physicsworld.com/2014/04...-of-inflation/

No FF, this link is from April, mine is from June. It is pretty clear that they did not detect these gravitational waves after all.

[firstfloor]

No FF, this link is from April, mine is from June. It is pretty clear that they did not detect these gravitational waves after all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28127576
and abstract here:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...ett.112.241101

[seer]

I don’t think anything is clear just yet. It looks to me as if the researchers are still saying they have a signal but they are less confident about it while they look for better data on dust emissions. The latest I can find is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28127576
and abstract here:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...ett.112.241101

Well yes FF, what they detected may just as well have been dust. This just makes my original point. We don't have any physical evidence yet.

[firstfloor]

Well ...........

Are you David Robertson?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GcPFfCfUak

[seer]

Are you David Robertson?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GcPFfCfUak

No, I'm not...

[JimL]

But Jim, scientist can only understand (mostly) the quantum world in this universe, then they extrapolate, i.e. your many worlds reference. But how do we even know if the greater cosmos is even governed by quantum mechanics? Perhaps there are completely different laws of physics. How would you know?

The point is seer that an understanding of the quantum world in this universe is evidence for the existence of parallel universes. Thats where the many worlds hypothesis comes from in the first place. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, they would be the same laws, but they would manifest themselves in accordance with the initial conditions of each universe.

[firstfloor]

The point is seer that an understanding of the quantum world in this universe is evidence for the existence of parallel universes. Thats where the many worlds hypothesis comes from in the first place. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, they would be the same laws, but they would manifest themselves in accordance with the initial conditions of each universe.

[Tassman]

But let's be honest Tass, there is still no physical evidence for inflation theory. It has some good explanatory power, if, and only if, you begin with certain assumptions. As the last page of your link suggests.

Science concentrates its attention on the current "open questions", (which is where we are regarding Inflationary Theory and Multiverse Theory) but it does so from a foundation of established scientific knowledge. Thus there are solid reasons for these

I don't know how many do or don't. The point is, even if inflation theory is correct it does not necessitate a multiverse, and there certainly is nothing to suggest that this greater universe is past-eternal, according to Alexander Vilenkin, at this stage, it is just the opposite - the multiverse would not be past eternal. It could be eternal into the future but not into the past.

[seer]

The point is seer that an understanding of the quantum world in this universe is evidence for the existence of parallel universes. Thats where the many worlds hypothesis comes from in the first place. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, they would be the same laws, but they would manifest themselves in accordance with the initial conditions of each universe.

But it really is not anything we can know, at least at this point, and as you know there are quantum theories that do not call for parallel universes.

[seer]

Science concentrates its attention on the current "open questions", (which is where we are regarding Inflationary Theory and Multiverse Theory) but it does so from a foundation of established scientific knowledge. Thus there are solid reasons for these “assumptions” as the last page of my link suggests. Given that some form of ‘Inflation’ is likely to become the standard cosmological model, Guth argues that virtually all inflationary models can only lead to a multiverse scenario.

Yes, and as my my link to Alexander Vilenkin pointed out the multiverse is not past complete, i.e. past eternal. We reach a boundary where we need a creation event for the multiverse. And as you know there are many physicists who are critical of inflation theory, or the idea that it necessarily leads to a multiverse. Paul Steinhardt one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology has become of its biggest critics. You need to read his article, inflation theory may be fundamentally flawed. I'm sure you will read it with an open mind: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

Vilenkin’s is just one of many hypotheses currently under scrutiny and even he posits several possibilities which encompass an infinite universe, e.g. Quantum tunneling. So it’s plain dishonest to selectively choose the one hypotheses, which you think supports your religious presuppositions, while disregarding the majority that don’t.

Sorry Tass we are speaking of inflation theory, the very theory that Vilenkin worked on with Guth. And why that can not get us to a past eternal state. So don't accuse me of being dishonest.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and as my my link to Alexander Vilenkin pointed out the multiverse is not past complete, i.e. past eternal. We reach a boundary where we need a creation event for the multiverse. And as you know there are many physicists who are critical of inflation theory, or the idea that it necessarily leads to a multiverse. Paul Steinhardt one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology has become of its biggest critics. You need to read his article, inflation theory may be fundamentally flawed. I'm sure you will read it with an open mind: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

It is obvious you do not have an open mind, nor understand the limits of the BVG theorem, and any other individual theorems and models. It does not conclude that the universe necessarily had a beginning. It is simply on of at least several possible models and/or theorems. The most likely candidate well grounded in the Theory of Relativity is that the cosmos is in reality timeless, and neither infinite/eternal nor finite/temporal.

Vilenkin and many physicists do believe that singularity existed prior to the beginning of the universe, but that of course is not conclusively absolutely known. The best conclusion is that based on our present evidence is that something indeed exist prior to the expansion.

Sorry Tass we are speaking of inflation theory, the very theory that Vilenkin worked on with Guth. And why that can not get us to a past eternal state. So don't accuse me of being dishonest.

Sorry seer there are more models and theorems then the BVG. I will also question your misuse and selective misrepresentation of science to justify a religious agenda.

[Tassman]

Yes, and as my my link to Alexander Vilenkin pointed out the multiverse is not past complete, i.e. past eternal. We reach a boundary where we need a creation event for the multiverse. And as you know there are many physicists who are critical of inflation theory, or the idea that it necessarily leads to a multiverse. Paul Steinhardt one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology has become of its biggest critics. You need to read his article, inflation theory may be fundamentally flawed. I'm sure you will read it with an open mind: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf




Sorry Tass we are speaking of inflation theory, the very theory that Vilenkin worked on with Guth. And why that can not get us to a past eternal state. So don't accuse me of being dishonest.

See shunyadragon above, i.e. Post #597

[seer]

It is obvious you do not have an open mind, nor understand the limits of the BVG theorem, and any other individual theorems and models. It does not conclude that the universe necessarily had a beginning. It is simply on of at least several possible models and/or theorems. The most likely candidate well grounded in the Theory of Relativity is that the cosmos is in reality timeless, and neither infinite/eternal nor finite/temporal.

Vilenkin and many physicists do believe that singularity existed prior to the beginning of the universe, but that of course is not conclusively absolutely known. The best conclusion is that based on our present evidence is that something indeed exist prior to the expansion.

Sorry seer there are more models and theorems then the BVG. I will also question your misuse and selective misrepresentation of science to justify a religious agenda.

I did no such thing Shuny, I just linked Vilenkin's talk. Anybody can watch it and come to their own conclusion. One thing in all of this is perfectly clear - there is no evidence for a past-eternal cosmos. And I linked Paul Steinhardt's piece showing why most if not all inflation theories are deeply flawed. And he was one of the early fathers of Inflation theory. And why a multiverse could not produce the kind of universe we see today. And you call me bias Shuny? You won't even read Steinhardt with an open mind - making you plainly one of the most bias people in this debate.

[shunyadragon]

I did not such thing Shuny, I just linked Vilenkin's talk. Anybody can watch it and come to their own conclusion. One thing in all of this is perfectly clear - there is no evidence for a past-eternal cosmos. And I linked Paul Steinhardt's piece showing why most if not all inflation theories are deeply flawed. And he was one of the early fathers of Inflation theory. And why a multiverse could not produce the kind of universe we see today. And you call me bias Shuny? You won't even read Steinhardt with an open mind - making you plainly one of the most bias people in this debate.

You keep referencing this many times to no avail. There is no direct physical evidence for either a finite nor an infinite universe. I have read Strinhardt, no problem, it does not change anything. Your bias has a religious agenda. I have not claimed there is 'direct evidence for either, and that these are among the open questions for the future of science. This simply basic state of the knowledge of science. Where is the bias on my part????

There is no direct physical evidence that our universe has a beginning