DiscussMormonism.com

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

This came up in another thread, it took me a bit to find the link. I usually watch color TV, (sometimes HD) and don't always have links for the BS I spout off.

Basically, this theory comes closer to my God theory than the Big Bang.

I admit, I'm a high school dropout, but according to my calculation, the Big Bang just doesn't make sense.

According to the last numbers I had, the Big Bang worked like this.

Some mysterious source/bunch of matter was collected into one place, (not sure how a place could exist without space). Without space defined by a certain amount of expanded matter, time doesn't exist, the relative gravity of the singularity would stop time as we know it. But getting beyond that. . . .

When the Big Bang happened, (exploded) it is estimated that 99.999999% of the matter was instantly (relatively speaking) destroyed by anti-matter. How matter and anti-matter existed side-by-side is something I've never understood. See, matter and anti-matter are sum-zero. Somewhere out there is an anti-matter universe exactly the same mass as this one, but in negative value. It would consume us. Some theorize that it has anti-time as well as anti-matter. . . . not sure how that works. But, with this model of our universe, magic isn't so unrealistic.

However, of the 0.000001% of the matter left over from the Big Bang, about 97% of that matter was so hot that it instantly ascended to a higher quantum level, making what we believe to be dark matter and dark energy. The other 3% is everything else we think we see.

Say this is even sort of possible. Where did the matter come from? What does it mean by matter and anti-matter consumed each other? If matter and anti-matter are sum-zero, what creates it in the first place? Is matter finite? If so, when the universe created. it destroyed almost 100% of the matter in the process. With the theory of multi-verses, how long can this go on? Even if all the matter in our universe equates a grain of sand on a beach, it won't last forever, not to mention where did it all come from to start with? Can matter even exist outside of time, or are their tied together?

Now, this idea that the universe has always existed is sort of tricky too, because it seems like there was beginning, except that math doesn't allow it. According to the math, the universe has always existed. How?

Because the math has always existed and the universe is a product of the math. The universe materialized out of the eternal laws of existence. Even when there is no matter, the laws of existence are still present. Just because you don't have a magnet in your hand, doesn't mean the laws of magnetism are not in effect around you. No matter where you go, or even if you can find a place that doesn't exist, the laws of existence are there. Process can start in levels so thin humans might think their non-existent. But eternal process can exist where our instruments cannot measure.

So it makes sense to me, that even when the universe began to emerge, that it came from a place that was old, even eternal, and thus, has always been.

But anyway, the science community isn't exactly excited about this, but more and more scientists are seeing that the foundation of universe is an eternal place. Even though objects, even layers of the universe have an age, that the universe itself is ageless and eternal. That where the body of the universe comes and goes too has always been and will always be.

SPG,

Although cosmology is normally one of the go-to subjects for board discussion and comment when it comes to science and religion, your OP makes any useful contributions highly unlikely.

Best advice: read some more - and then try again.

You could start by picking up a copy of a now classic book by Lawrence Krauss entitled, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing".

The Big Bang remains the best explanation, by far, for:

- the red shift observed in the light from distant galaxies and stars (with distances made more precise by the "standard candle" of a specific type of supernova), indicating an expanding universe,

- the distribution of visible matter (and dark matter) in the visible universe, indicating a "flat universe" (i.e. neither "open" or "closed").

- the anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background.

- The Higgs boson, detected in 2012, also lends credence to the standard cosmology.

DrW wrote:SPG,

Although cosmology is normally one of the go-to subjects for board discussion and comment when it comes to science and religion, your OP makes any useful contributions highly unlikely.

Best advice: read some more - and then try again.

You could start by picking up a copy of a now classic book by Lawrence Krauss entitled, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing".

The Big Bang remains the best explanation, by far, for:

- the red shift observed in the light from distant galaxies and stars (with distances made more precise by the "standard candle" of a specific type of supernova), indicating an expanding universe,

- the distribution of visible matter (and dark matter) in the visible universe, indicating a "flat universe" (i.e. neither "open" or "closed").

- the anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background.

- The Higgs boson, detected in 2012, also lends credence to the standard cosmology.

I have read a lot of this subject. I'm really not arguing with the Big Bang a lot, because I don't understand the physics of it. But I can say, to me, it doesn't make sense. I understand why it is a good model for what we see and from what I understand from the article, the dispute about the Big Bang is more mathematics then observed effect.

But, my belief about how the it started and the foundation of existence holds for me. The Big Bang as a lone event make no sense to me. It was part of a bigger process, a process that does not rely on existing matter.

Time and space are strange. Like, gravity slows down time, or does it expand space? Compressed space with expanded time would make things happen faster. Or, by compressing time does that expand space from a remote viewer? How long the Big Bang actually took, it might have been micro seconds, or millions of years and we might not really now, because we don't have an external vantage point. When something falls into the gravity of a blackhole it seems to slow down in time, or does the distance somehow expand so it is traveling a further distance in local time?

I could get really confused with all of the possibilities, but I dare say, there is a lot of room to question what is really going on. I've brought up some these questions up on physic forums and though they cannot answer my questions, they seem assured everything is as it seems.

But, I posted this particular article to show that there are questions in the physics world. This article was written in 2015 and I've heard genius level scientists look a little puzzled over some of the questions I've been mentioned here. Like, "what is the foundation of the universe?" Their answer was "math." The relationships start in places where no particles exist and it extends out from there.

SPG wrote:Now, this idea that the universe has always existed is sort of tricky too, because it seems like there was beginning, except that math doesn't allow it. According to the math, the universe has always existed.

What is this "the math" of which you speak? What you're saying is equivalent to, ". . . the English doesn't allow it. According to the English, the universe has always existed."

Because the math has always existed and the universe is a product of the math.

That's like saying, "The auto mechanics has always existed and the universe is a product of the auto mechanics."

But anyway, the science community isn't exactly excited about this, but more and more scientists are seeing that the foundation of universe is an eternal place.

Please back up that statement.

The Big Bang as a lone event make no sense to me.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. It simply is, entirely independent of you.

It was part of a bigger process, a process that does not rely on existing matter.

It was part of its own process, a process that does not rely upon existing matter.

Like, "what is the foundation of the universe?" Their answer was "math."

No. Math is not the foundation of the universe. It may, in their opinion, be the foundation for understanding the universe, but it isn't the foundation of the universe, any more than social studies is.

Dr. Shades wrote:

SPG wrote:Now, this idea that the universe has always existed is sort of tricky too, because it seems like there was beginning, except that math doesn't allow it. According to the math, the universe has always existed.

What is this "the math" of which you speak? What you're saying is equivalent to, ". . . the English doesn't allow it. According to the English, the universe has always existed."

Because the math has always existed and the universe is a product of the math.

That's like saying, "The auto mechanics has always existed and the universe is a product of the auto mechanics."

But anyway, the science community isn't exactly excited about this, but more and more scientists are seeing that the foundation of universe is an eternal place.

Please back up that statement.

The Big Bang as a lone event make no sense to me.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. It simply is, entirely independent of you.

It was part of a bigger process, a process that does not rely on existing matter.

It was part of its own process, a process that does not rely upon existing matter.

Like, "what is the foundation of the universe?" Their answer was "math."

No. Math is not the foundation of the universe. It may, in their opinion, be the foundation for understanding the universe, but it isn't the foundation of the universe, any more than social studies is.

Excellent responses to SPG's nonsense, Dr. Shades. (Looks as though the boss has some sci-creds as well.)
__________________________________________

Further on the article that is the subject of the OP - it turns out that the relative abundances of the elements detected in the universe are predicted quite precisely by the standard cosmology (Big Bang) model.

The predicted abundance ratios of the lighter elements, such as hydrogen to helium and lithium, are especially accurate. This accuracy extends further up the Periodic Table to include such main sequence star produced elements as oxygen, carbon and (terminally) iron. C, O and Fe are relatively abundant nuclei in the universe compared to their near neighbors on the Periodic Table. (For elements beyond iron, we are pretty much dependent on more violent and higher energy processes such as those associated with supernovae.)

These ratios can be determined by spectrometric measurements of the light from distant stars, hot gas clouds, and other visible objects in the universe (just ask Maksutov). These ratios are also measured by direct analysis of materials sampled from the Earth, the moon, Mars, and materials taken from countless meteorites.

Results, pretty much regardless of source, are entirely consistent with the age of the universe as predicted by the Big Bang model, and verified by the cosmic microwave background.

Back to the article cited in the OP - David Bohm was an important and under-recognized (in my opinion) American physicist, who also contributed to the neurosciences. There seems to be more interest in his work outside the US now, especially in Russia, as compared to here. As claimed in the article cited in the OP, it is entirely possible that that the Bohmian mechanics version of quantum field theory could be of value in gaining a better understanding of the Big Bang, especially the very early epochs.

However, this does not mean that there was no Big Bang. To paraphrase Lawrence Krauss; the various lines of evidence for the Big Bang are so well aligned and internally consistent that it is highly unlikely the model will ever be overturned. The Big Bang is now considered established science.

So, as you say Doc; it really doesn't matter what SPG thinks - the Big Bang just is - or was.

Regarding the role of quantum field theory in helping to explain the birth of the Universe (before the Big Bang), I mentioned upthread that the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was strong evidence for the standard Big Bang cosmological model. It should also be mentioned that the CMB anisotropy is very good evidence for quantum field effects in the birth of the universe.

This anisotropy, or (very small) variations, in the CMB from different directions in the sky was predicted as to magnitude and distribution by the considering quantum field effects that held sway in the very early phases (after the singularity but before and during inflation) and before the superhot epochs, of the Big Bang process.

In this version of the Big Bang, these quantum-based variations, as reflected in the cosmic microwave background, are extremely small. So small, in fact, that they were not measured with sufficient precision to confirm theory until the COBE satellite was launched and made measurements from space (without the interference of the Earth's atmosphere) over a period of more than a decade.

To give an idea of how small the predicted variations were and how difficult it was to confirm the theory that quantum perturbations at less than 10^-30 seconds or so after the singularity were "frozen in" to space time during inflation (and are now seen as anisotropies in the cosmic wave background), the precision to which these variations were finally observed was on the order of one part in ten to the 60th power*.
__________________

*See: John Gribbin (2015) Before the Big Bang: Inflation gravitational waves and the birth of the universe.