Out of nothing comes something???

[Aethelwulf]

Edit: of course there are models that may replace the Big Bang, no one is denying it. If something comes along with more predictive power then it will become the new mainstream. But so far there are none, at least none testable and so it is unjustified to support any of these ideas to the exclusion of all the rest.

''The BB itself leads to that conclusion. You do realize that a point has no dimensions?

You do realize that time is described by a four-dimensional metric?

You do see the problem therein, don't you? Or are you being obtuse?''


You do realize this though. All this stuff about t=0, t=1, its all useless when you realize there was no geometry.

[Shaula]

its all useless when you realize there was no geometry.

There is no strong evidence for that being the case. It is one option among many.

[Aethelwulf]

There is no strong evidence for that being the case. It is one option among many.

How can you be sure about the BB then? This is what BB said - keeping singularities out of the discussion, our universe arose from a point with no dimensions?

[Shaula]

This is what BB said - keeping singularities out of the discussion, our universe arose from a point with no dimensions?

That is not true.

[Aethelwulf]

That is not true.

I can find plenty sources which says our universe arose from an infinitely dense, POINT.

Show me your proof?

[Aethelwulf]

This maybe a matter of you not being mathematically trained [enough]. To learn what a point is, you need to understand it is the absence of geometry.

[Shaula]

I can find plenty sources which says our universe arose from an infinitely dense, POINT.
Show me your proof?

Sure you can. They'd mostly be pop-sci. Or people pushing beyond the bounds of that the theory says.

This maybe a matter of you not being mathematically trained [enough]. To learn what a point is, you need to understand it is the absence of geometry.

My maths is not that bad, thanks. A point is a zero dimensional geometric object. I think you might be confusing your terms again.

[Aethelwulf]

I believe it was George Lamaitre who derived the ''Primevil Atom'' hypothesis of the universe. Today, our theory of BB has changed a great deal. Our theory tackles (or at least from the QM-framework) that we deal with times less than the Planck Length.


Why is then, when I punch in ''BB, infinite density, infinitely small point''


I get enough reassurance that your concept of BB is not what fits mainstream?

[NEOWatcher]

LQG is mainstream. I don't care how ''speculative'' it might seem. Many artifacts of the BB are speculative.

No; because...

LQG is one of the speculative theories to go beyond the Standard Model. So are String theory, Casual Dynamic Triangulation, Superfluid Vacuum ideas, Technicolour approaches and so on. There is no evidence for any of these yet and they have not made testable predictions. One of them may turn out to be the next model, it may be something else.

Mainstream means that we have a "best" model. Not a "possible" model.

''The BB itself leads to that conclusion. You do realize that a point has no dimensions?

It may "lead" you down that path, but the BB does not say that.

[Aethelwulf]

And zero dimensional means, no geometry. You said that sentence as if they should imply something different.

[Aethelwulf]

It may "lead" you down that path, but the BB does not say that.

Rubbish. Links please? As I have said, the universal understanding is our universe came from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point in our history.

[NEOWatcher]

I believe it was George Lamaitre who derived the ''Primevil Atom'' hypothesis of the universe. Today, our theory of BB has changed a great deal. Our theory tackles (or at least from the QM-framework) that we deal with times less than the Planck Length.

Why is then, when I punch in ''BB, infinite density, infinitely small point''

I get enough reassurance that your concept of BB is not what fits mainstream?

You answered yourself in this. People once thought it lead to that conclusion, now they don't. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who are stuck with that old idea.

[Aethelwulf]

You answered yourself in this. People once thought it lead to that conclusion, now they don't. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who are stuck with that old idea.

For an idea to be outdated, there needs to be a theory to replace it. I asked for links explaining the universe did not appear from an infinitely small point. You have provided none. To me, you are both wheeling non-mainstream idea's. If anything, you are wheeling a belief-system.

[Shaula]

Rubbish. Links please? As I have said, the universal understanding is our universe came from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point in our history.

You could try reading the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang. It might help you get a handle on what is currently being said. And as for universal understanding - no, it is a common misunderstanding of Big Bang theory. One I was repeatedly cautioned against when studying cosmology at university.

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.

And at the end of the Planck epoch the universe was not a point.

[Swift]

Aethelwulf,

You seem to be making a habit of turning every single Q&A thread even remotely related to this topic into your personal soapbox on your ideas. This is not a good thing. I'm closing this thread while the moderation team decides what to do about it.