Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[JimL]

It is possible I am mistaken; I am not an astrophysicist. My understanding of the current state of the BB theory is that we know the existing space/time continuum originated in a singularity - we can see backwards to the explosion of that singularity and see it's impact on the modern structure of the universe. What we cannot see is how that singularity arose.

No, I do not believe that any phycisit would say that they know that the universe began as a singularity. It's hypothetical.

That being said, I am not an expert on the Planck Epoch and do not know enough to take a position. Perhaps I will have time to educate myself a bit after the next two weeks.

The planck epoch is, i believe, hypothetical. Whether the universe actually began as a singularity, if we could reverse the expansion process until the universe shrunk back down to the planck length and ultimately to a singularity, is I believe, hypothetical, though I would call the hypotheses, science.

[carpedm9587]

No, I do not believe that any phycisit would say that they know that the universe began as a singularity. It's hypothetical.

The planck epoch is, i believe, hypothetical. Whether the universe actually began as a singularity, if we could reverse the expansion process until the universe shrunk back down to the planck length and ultimately to a singularity, is I believe, hypothetical, though I would call the hypotheses, science.

OK, I caved and took some time to do a bit of digging. I found a lot of things like this. I have concluded that I am way behind in my cosmology, and the image I have of the Big Bang theory is a couple (maybe a few) decades old. It appears there is significant reason to question BB, and several alternative proposals.

I need to re-edumacate myself.

That does not, however, change the definition of a "scientific hypothesis." It merely calls into question a hypothesis that I thought was scientific, and it is possible it is not.

[element771]

The findings of science cannot be used to support a theological argument for the philosophical/theological beliefs for a beginning of our universe, nor our physical existence.

You saying this does not make it true.

And only in your mind am I extreme, I am stating the currently best established theory. Again, science doesn't care about your feelings.

You have yet to show any ounce of scientific evidence that the BB is problematic. You post peoples opinions, not the science behind it.

[element771]

The planck epoch is, i believe, hypothetical. Whether the universe actually began as a singularity, if we could reverse the expansion process until the universe shrunk back down to the planck length and ultimately to a singularity, is I believe, hypothetical, though I would call the hypotheses, science.

This is the sticking point.

Please entertain this simplification / analogy:

The BB paints a mechanist picture of how the universe came into being and where it currently is. It makes predictions that have been empirically verified. It hypothesizes that the universe began as a singularity which is where the laws of physics break down (as you correctly stated).

If the BB model for the universe makes unique predictions that have been empirically verified, then that is the best model that we have so far. And if that model predicts that the universe began as a singularity, then it is likely that this is also true despite being the point physics breaks down. Does that mean it is 100% certain that it is true? Nope. But if a highly supported model leads you there, then I don't understand why anyone would advocate that model to be invalid when it comes to that point. Especially when NO model speaks to that point. I will take a model that has held up with decades of empirical validation versus a model that is built on 3 levels of speculation that potentially cannot be empirically tested and / or falsified.

According to Shuny, this makes me extreme. However, I am in a far better position to judge the science being done than he is. If anyone has any physics background, I would love to hear from them to discuss the actual science.

[element771]

OK, I caved and took some time to do a bit of digging. I found a lot of things like this. I have concluded that I am way behind in my cosmology, and the image I have of the Big Bang theory is a couple (maybe a few) decades old. It appears there is significant reason to question BB, and several alternative proposals.

I need to re-edumacate myself.

That does not, however, change the definition of a "scientific hypothesis." It merely calls into question a hypothesis that I thought was scientific, and it is possible it is not.

What are the reasons that you find to be compelling?

[carpedm9587]

What are the reasons that you find to be compelling?

Reasons for what?

[element771]

Reasons for what?

What are the significant reasons to question the BB theory that you alluded to in your post?

[carpedm9587]

What are the significant reasons to question the BB theory that you alluded to in your post?

I only read quickly, but several of the articles I skimmed made reference to the increasing dissatisfaction many scientists have with the "cobbled" nature of the BB theory. As more and more exploration is done, new "pieces" have to be added (e.g., inflation, dark matter, dark energy) etc., to explain new findings. In my experience, there is a tendency for nature to lean to the elegant, and the BB theory seems to be moving away from elegant. Instead of the sense of discovery affirming and deepening the understanding, there is a sense of discovery requiring the model to be continually "tweaked."

That being said - it's an impression. I really just skimmed the articles. I'm racing to get a course finished so I can teach it on Monday. I shouldn't be playing here at all, but I can only write so much courseware and create so many slides before my head says "BREAK!"

Ironically, I then switch to this window and write some more!

I'm a man of contradictions...

[element771]

I only read quickly, but several of the articles I skimmed made reference to the increasing dissatisfaction many scientists have with the "cobbled" nature of the BB theory. As more and more exploration is done, new "pieces" have to be added (e.g., inflation, dark matter, dark energy) etc., to explain new findings. In my experience, there is a tendency for nature to lean to the elegant, and the BB theory seems to be moving away from elegant. Instead of the sense of discovery affirming and deepening the understanding, there is a sense of discovery requiring the model to be continually "tweaked."

That being said - it's an impression. I really just skimmed the articles. I'm racing to get a course finished so I can teach it on Monday. I shouldn't be playing here at all, but I can only write so much courseware and create so many slides before my head says "BREAK!"

Ironically, I then switch to this window and write some more!

I'm a man of contradictions...

So that is interesting...

Inflation has not really been proven and many people think that it is just shoe-horned into the BB to explain some features of the universe. Currently, there is no way to empirically verify inflation and there are issues concerning the theory.

Dark matter is interesting because I am not sure what it says against the BB theory. I think dark matter would be more of a concern with the standard model of particle physics.

Dark energy is the same... I am not sure what bearing dark energy has on the BB theory and actually may help modify the BB theory to account for a lot of the mysteries.

Basically all of these concepts potential help explain some of the issues having to do with the BB theory. If anything, these theories may actually support the BB theory rather than retract from the theory.

I hear you about being not supposed to be here...I am currently in a seminar.

[shunyadragon]

That may have been your point, Shuny, and I accept it as such, but your language to this point has been pretty opaque. As I go back and reread your posts, I see several places where you question the Big Bang. The impression left was that you were questioning that science has shown such an event has actually happened.

I think the confusion may be around the term "beginning." Our current space/time continuum has clearly been shown to have originated in the Big Bang. I am comfortable with the scientific evidence for this. As has been noted, it is the original of the singularity that is unknown. A cyclic universe is certainly a possible explanation. Indeed, it is the one possibility that has a hypothetical approach to falsifying it, and it is the one theory I would be comfortable calling a "scientific hypothesis." Theoretically, if the universe is indeed cycling, we should be able to model that and determine what factors would cause the universe to begin to collapse instead of continue to expand. If we can establish those factors exist and predict what they should be doing at this point in the universe's lifecycle, it would be evidence for a cyclic universe. It does not seem to me that we necessarily need to be able to see past the Planck Epoch to do that exploration.

That is the only theory, however, AFAIK, open to that possible avenue of exploration - at least at this time.

I give equal skepticism that we know how the universe began. The theory or hypothesis that universes may begin as black holes is a possibility, which would not be beginning as a singularity.

My only BIG contention that I have repeated many times is element771's assertion that 'current science considers our universe to have a definite beginning.' As you said, 'it depends on what you mean by a beginning.' There are possibly many many beginnings, but science has never proposed a definitive beginning that there was not preexisting energy and/or matter prior to any beginning. Science is indifference as to whether there is or is not a definitive beginning to our physical existence. Such beginnings are a Theological/philosophical question with no help from science.

[shunyadragon]

You saying this does not make it true.

And only in your mind am I extreme, I am stating the currently best established theory. Again, science doesn't care about your feelings.

You have yet to show any ounce of scientific evidence that the BB is problematic. You post peoples opinions, not the science behind it.

Not so, because you cannot cite all the papers here, but the works of Steinhardt, Turok, Hawking, Hertog, and other physicists and cosmologists that I cite do not represent simply 'opinions.' You are not qualified as they are, and what you express is most definitely 'opinions' based on a religious agenda and not science. The scientist I cite base their work on science.

[element771]

Not so, because you cannot cite all the papers here, but the works of Steinhardt, Turok, Hawking, Hertog, and other physicists and cosmologists that I cite do not represent simply 'opinions.' You are not qualified as they are, and what you express is most definitely 'opinions' based on a religious agenda and not science. The scientist I cite base their work on science.

[shunyadragon]

Put up or shut up.

Not a chance. What I cite is definitely referencing the works of these scientists, and you arrogantly dismiss them as 'opinions.I do not believe that Carp and you are on the same page. Neither of us believe that the current science supports the notion that there is a definitive beginning of our universe nor our physical existence. By the way, you have failed to cite any physicists nor cosmologists that support your foolish notions concerning scientific 'findings.'

You clearly indicated a religious agenda by claiming that scientific 'findings' may be used to support religious arguments. I sincerely believe both Carp and I reject this foolish notion despite our differences.

You are amazingly skilled at twisting others word to justify your agenda.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe is usually on his own page...

[shunyadragon]

Carpe is usually on his own page...

True, but as element771 are you on his page concerning his claims. I do believe we are in agreement on these points only. It was element771 who claimed you were on these points. I was clear I only referred to these point and acknowledged that we are in disagreement on many things.