sargasso_see

Well, I really don't care about reproach or governing human actions, what I'm concerned with is the one loophole God can still slip through and that is the fact people can't agree on what he is. This would be consistent with both the premises of his existence or non-existence, because I think it's stupid to believe a being who created the universe without leaving a trace of his existence would then expect or even need anyone to worship him. Freedom may or may not be his/her/its curse.

I've read stuff about false vacuums before, hardly as optimistic as Discover puts it, but I'd sure like to see how the theists attack this one.

Lobstrosity

Current theoretical models for the state of the universe as a function of time are only valid for times after the Planck time (t ~ 10^-43 s). At the Planck time GR breaks down and quantum effects become important. Since there is no quantum theory of gravity, no theoretical predictions can be made about the state of the universe before this time. As this is clearly a quantum domain and uncaused events are allowed in quantum mechanics, I see no validity to the "first cause" or "prime mover" argument.

diana

Good morning, EarthGirl.

Me too. At least, it feels that way. I was raised fundy, and they do their level best to make sure you aren't exposed to scientific heresies and if you are, that you learn to sneer at the concepts they represent. (But maybe that's just me and the backward subculture I came from.)

It was the "back to a fraction of a second" bit that gogged me out. I have no doubt you did hear such a thing, but it sounds like words a fundy would put into the mouth of scientists in order to make them appear as thought they are all-knowing (and thus disparage them and their findings).

Here's a brief rundown from Cosmology 101: How old is the universe?

The age of the universe is estimated in billions of years. Scientists, to my knowledge, have never claimed they know its age to within thousands of years, let alone hundreds, let alone years, let along days...etc. You get the picture.

Oh. OK. It was your use of the two words in the same sentence that led me to believe you meant something different with "growth."

d

Koyaanisqatsi

Actually, lobstrosity, there are theories of quantum gravity (such as the loop quantum gravity theory, in which space is constructed from the relationships between loops, originally derived by applying quantum theory to the formulation of general relativity discovered by Sen and Ashtekar).

If my layman's interpretation is right, it posits a dynamic universe (instead of the "background dependent" one of Newton), which would mean that a form of stasis is maintained at all times. Thus there is no "spark" that "started" anything; it eternally exists as a dynamic, ever changing state, which accounts for what we perceive as expansion.

Welcome to the boards Earthgirl!

Darth Dane

If my layman's interpretation is right, it posits a dynamic universe (instead of the "background dependent" one of Newton), which would mean that a form of stasis is maintained at all times.


So from "outside" it look s like the Universe is standing still, but from inside it looks like it is moving at all times.
Could this correspond to this idea?: A poet wrote "God is the unmovable mover" Would this phrase describe Reality?


Thus there is no "spark" that "started" anything; it eternally exists as a dynamic, ever changing state, which accounts for what we perceive as expansion.

I agree, there was no beginning and tehre will be no end. Everything happens Now, but in different shades of Grey...




DD - Love Spliff

eh

LQG keeps the idea there is a minimum size to the universe, does it not? If so, it follows that if there was before the BB, the universe must have been bigger than this minimum size. This suggests an oscillating universe, from bang to crunch. The problem is, we now seem to be living in universe set to expand forever. Is someone really going to suggest the universe had been oscillating for eternity, then suddenly it stopped and expanded forever?

Koyaanisqatsi

First, to all curious about loop quantum gravity theory, keep in mind that I am a layman and so am interpreting what I read. Also keep in mind that I had responded intially to lobstrosity's post, primarily.

Yes, I believe it does. I know it deals with the geometry of physics on the Planck scale. Let me go to the source. From Three Roads To Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin (p. 128; emphasis mine):

Remember, I am the one who interpreted this (not this quote directly, but the whole theory) to mean there might not have been an initial "spark" or "start" of the universe. Smolin tends to agree with me, however, that there could have been a "before the BB" (as you put it).

And this from pp. 198-199, where he is describing a phase theory of multiple universes (based on Martin Reese's "multiverse" concept):

He then goes on to describe variations on M theory, which I won't go into here.

I'm not sure that follows, but, again, just a layman I. As I understand it, there will be no "crunch" (meaning everything collapses in upon itself) in a dynamic universe; there will be a "freeze" as the galaxies move farther and farther apart, that in turn may cause the "eruption" of another "big bang," but, again, I'm not sure this is what the LQG theory, specifically, suggests. I'm getting this from what the quotes above point to, which are based on phase theory as well; a theory that LQG encompasses, or so Smolin implies.

What LQG (and phase theory) seems to dispute is that there ever was a single, original "big bang;" that instead there have been and likely will be multiple "big bangs."

Again, I don't think this follows from LQG. It's a relatively new theory and has recently been supported to some degree by the discovery of the cosmological constant having a positive energy state as well as the possibility that the speed of light may depend on the energy carried by the photon (i.e., that it is not constant at higher frequency rates).

It's a fascinating book, but the theories discussed are by no means a declaration of "what is;" they, too are dynamic , and I highly recommend it for anyone curious (layman or not) about the latest cosmological theories.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, that wasn't what I meant to imply. As I understand what LQG suggests, the universe is expanding in the sense that the denser (i.e., detectable by us) matter is travelling away from other dense matter (i.e., galaxies are moving away from other galaxies), but this expansion is not in the same intuitive manner of a point "Alpha" to a point "Omega" linearity. That is what I meant by our perception.

No. That I can state with a strong degree of certainty .

Yeah...sure...pass the spliff.

diana

Well...I'm not sure whether it should go to Science and Skepticism or Evolution/Creationism. I'll drop it in the former and see how it goes.

It has passed it's EoG potential.

(Sorry to pass your thread around like a hot potato, EarthGirl. Nothing personal.)

d

Lobstrosity

I guess I should put it this way: there are no accepted theories of quantum gravity yet. As far as I know (though I could be wrong), all current theories are highly incomplete and completely untested from an empirical standpoint. Basically, I think it's fair to view current quantum gravity theories as being under construction.