♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 THE KCA IN INFLATIONARY BIG BANG COSMOLOGY 1. There may or may not have been an initial singularity... the jury's still out on that. Whatever the mechanism for time and space to come into existence(assuming it didn't always exist), the very first manifestation of it is the Higgs field, which is an unstable region of false vacuum energy. The Higgs field isn't static, but behaves in a very specifically-defined way. It expands from the singularity in a never-ending, exponentially-accelerating manner. OK, I'm trying to follow you, BAA. Above you say that IBBC has not not established whether there was an initial singularity. Then you say that the Higgs field expands from the singularity etc. Don't you need to say instead, IF there was an initial singularity, THEN the Higgs field would be expanding from it? If the singularity is a necessity for the Higgs field to exist, then the same rules about time and space that applied in the traditional paradigm also apply here. I guess you are doing that in the sentence above? If the singularity isn't a necessity, then the Higgs field may well be eternal. Eternal in every sense of the word. Matter and energy will always have existed. As mentioned above, this remains unknown and also under debate. OK The bottom line re: the KCA is that the direct causal links and certainty of the traditional paradigm can no longer apply. The argument breaks down from get go because direct causal links between it's stages cannot be validly established. OK. I understand this to boil down, put another way, to a claim that the major premise in the KCA is not known to be a true premise. Cool. Guth writes... "If Inflation is correct, then the inflationary mechanism is responsible for the creation of essentially all the matter and energy in the universe. The theory also implies that the observed universe is only a minute fraction of the entire universe, and it strongly suggests that there are perhaps an infinite number of other universes that are completely disconnected from our own." snip Here, the words, 'entire universe' mean... just ...our pocket universe. The tiny portion we can observe is calculated to be a little under 100 billion light-years across. This sounds like a lot. But it isn't. Compared to the entire volume of our Higgs-generated pocket, it's just a minute speck. A mote. Perhaps the size of this period... . ...compared to the whole of this page. Wait, does Guth have a term that means "set of all (pocket) universes"? Now the CP comes into play. Now we don't just have one region to consider, as per the traditional paradigm... now we have many. The CP rules that we cannot assert or conclude that our universe is special in any way. It is no different than any other. It's status is equal. Therefore, we cannot assert or conclude that everything came into existence because of our universe. Nor can we assert or conclude that our universe was the very first region of the Higgs field to decay. The uniqueness and specialness of our universe is denied. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you see where I'm going with this, F? . . . As you can tell, I'm extremely excited about this new leap in my understanding of cosmology! Please get back to me, asap. I value your input. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 1. For the fundamentalist, the questions would arise, will there be other Adams and Eves in the other pocket universes? That depends on the historical/natural status of A & E. If they really were historical figures and are subject to all the natural physical laws that ordinarily apply to ordinary historical figures, then in a truly infinite ensemble of pocket universes, there will be an infinite number of Adam and Eve's. This is inevitable. Any non-zero number multiplied by infinity yields infinity. This is the Infinite Replication Paradox. If the number of pocket universes isn't infinite, but still sufficiently high, then there will accordingly be a number of exact duplicates of Adam and Eve. This is the Finite Replication Paradox at work. But if they historical and supernatural, then it's anyone's guess. Supernatural magic violates natural law and makes estimation and calculation impossible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Last year you were posting about the multiverse. Is the multiverse the sum of all pocket universes derived from the SAME singularity? Yes. The term multiverse can be used in this way. But last year my understanding of things multiversal was less complete than it is now. So I'll explain. Like most people I (naively) mis-understood what Inflationary theory says about the singularity and our pocket universe. At that time I understood the multiverse to be future-eternal, but not past-eternal. Guth and other cosmologists have calculated that inflation had to have a starting point. This starting point is assumed to be the singularity. So, once the singularity starts Inflation, this process never ends and goes on and on into the future... for eternity. That's what they mean by future-eternal. Now we come to my BIG mistake. Like most people I wrongly thought that the singularity was the cause of OUR pocket universe and that inflation was on-going... O -N -L -Y ...from the moment of OUR Big Bang, 13.82 billion years ago. This is not correct. This is a mis-understanding. This is not what Inflationary theory is actually saying. Future-eternal Inflationary theory says this.. * Inflation is started by the singularity. (There is no 'before'.) * The Higgs field, not the singularity, is responsible for cosmic inflation. * The Higgs field is the beginning of space and time. * The Higgs field radiates out from the singularity in a chaotic and unstable way. * Some regions of the field spontaneously and violently decay. * These become pocket universes. * Each pocket universe experiences it's own Big Bang. * Time and space begin in each pocket universe with their own Big Bang. * The Higgs field never stops generating these pocket universes. * The rate at which it radiates outwards and at which it generates universes, accelerates exponentially. So where do we fit in? Hmmm... well, better questions to ask are these. Q. Are we the very first region to become a pocket universe? A. Unknown and probably unknowable. Q. Where and/or when is the singularity in relation to us... our pocket universe? A. Unknown and probably unknowable. Q. How many regions became pocket universes before us? A. Unknown and probably unknowable. Q. How many pocket universes are there now? A. Unknown and probably unknowable. All we can safely say is that since our pocket universe is 13.82 billion years old, the Higgs field has been actively generating universes at an exponentially-accelerating rate since then. Since we cannot know if our pocket universe was the very first one to be made by the Higgs field or the million billion trillionth, we can never count the total number of pocket universes generated since the singularity initiated the inflationary process. Q. Is there just one singularity? A. Yes. Only one is needed. The spontaneous decay of the Higgs field creates separate and individual pocket universes, each one experiencing it's own Big Bang. The abrupt (explosive) decay of each region is it's own Big Bang. There are as many Big Bangs as there are pocket universes. Q. When did time and space come into existence? A. There are two answers to this question - the complete answer and the local answer. All of time and space came into existence 'whenever' and 'wherever' the Higgs field emerged from the initial singularity. However, we cannot say 'when' or 'where' this happened in relation to us. From our 'local' p.o.v., time and space in our pocket universe came into existence 13.82 billion years ago. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Can the Kalam be widened to encompass the new, Inflationary paradigm? No. Under the traditional scheme of pre-Inflationary Big Bang cosmology, direct causal links between God, the singularity and this universe could be firmly established the Christian apologist. 1 God ---> 1 singularity ---> 1 universe. There are no pluralities to account for. There is nothing else. God created only this universe via the singularity, according to His will. There was only one Fall from Grace and Jesus needs to be crucified only once. In the inflationary paradigm we have 1 God, 1 singularity and many pocket universes. Now, since Inflationary theory is science, the rules and regs of science MUST apply. Inflationary theory tells us that our pocket universe is not all there is. Inflation creates many pocket universes. Therefore, if we use the Copernican Principle to guide us, within our pocket universe - we MUST therefore extend it's usage to every pocket universe. This is not negotiable. Christian apologists cannot cherry-pick which scientific principles they want to abide by. If they want to cite the science of Inflation, they have to abide by the governing axioms of the science ...all the way down the line. The Copernican Principle, when applied to every pocket universe tells us that we are not special. Therefore, no Christian apologist can make the claim that God is directly responsible for the creation of only our universe. Under the auspices of the CP, Christians are obliged to consider all pocket universes to be of equal status. So, if life evolved in our pocket universe, then there is a non-zero probability that it will do so again, wherever the same life-friendly conditions prevail in another pocket universe, elsewhere. If you look back at point #1, Ficino, you'll see how the stats play out. Planets identical to Earth in every way - with their own Adam and Eve's and their own Jesus of Nazareth's are a statistical certainty when the CP is factored into things. The twin effects of an infinite (or near infinite) multiverse of pocket universes and the levelling effects of the CP combine to destroy the usefulness of the KCA. If WLC adopts Inflationary cosmology (without equivocating on anything) then his argument fails. The Inflationary KCA generates a plurality of crucified Christ's, not a single crucified Christ. The words, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence." become deadly poison to Christian apologetics. 'Everything' in the traditional paradigm only meant one universe. 'Everything' in the Inflationary paradigm must be taken to mean... e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g ...so that's every pocket universe, thank you very much!. . . . The only way out of this bind that I can see F, is if WLC plays the supernaturalism card. He would have to rule that God supernaturally intervenes to ensure that life only arises here on Earth and nowhere else, either in our pocket universe or in any other. That way the purity and sanctity of scripture is preserved. If he wants to posit the existence of many Christ's being crucified many times over, then he runs the risk of seriously diluting God's word and being labelled a heretic by many millions of offended Christians. . . . I hope this ramble helps. I'll apply myself to your next post as soon as I can. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Future-eternal Inflationary theory says this.. * The Higgs field is the beginning of space and time. * The Higgs field radiates out from the singularity in a chaotic and unstable way. The above two confuse me. If the Higgs field radiates out from the singularity, it sounds as though the singularity is the beginning of the Higgs field. Similarly when you say below that the Higgs field "emerged from the singularity." Are you saying that the singularity is the beginning of the Higgs field, and the Higgs field is the beginning of space and time? Or is the "singularity" just a property of a stage of the Higgs field and not a separate source of the Higgs field? Q. Is there just one singularity? A. Yes. Only one is needed. The spontaneous decay of the Higgs field creates separate and individual pocket universes, each one experiencing it's own Big Bang. The abrupt (explosive) decay of each region is it's own Big Bang. There are as many Big Bangs as there are pocket universes. I can see that the KCA can't be used under inflationary cosmology to argue for an external cause of our universe as though ours is the only universe. But can someone recast the KCA (sort of as we were speculating last year)? Something like If something had a beginning, it had a cause other than itself. The Higgs field had a beginning. Therefore the Higgs field had a cause other than itself. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Future-eternal Inflationary theory says this.. * The Higgs field is the beginning of space and time. * The Higgs field radiates out from the singularity in a chaotic and unstable way. The above two confuse me. If the Higgs field radiates out from the singularity, it sounds as though the singularity is the beginning of the Higgs field. Yes. Just as the singularity was the true and ultimate beginning of all things in traditional Big Bang cosmology, so the singularity is still the true and ultimate beginning in Inflationary cosmology. The key difference is this. In the old paradigm the singularity directly caused only our universe. In the new paradigm, the singularity causes the Higgs field, which then goes on to cause a multitiude of pocket universes. Similarly when you say below that the Higgs field "emerged from the singularity." Are you saying that the singularity is the beginning of the Higgs field, and the Higgs field is the beginning of space and time? Yes. The singularity, just like it's traditional counterpart, is the true beginning. Or is the "singularity" just a property of a stage of the Higgs field and not a separate source of the Higgs field? No. The Higgs field is the universe-making product of the singularity. Q. Is there just one singularity? A. Yes. Only one is needed. The spontaneous decay of the Higgs field creates separate and individual pocket universes, each one experiencing it's own Big Bang. The abrupt (explosive) decay of each region is it's own Big Bang. There are as many Big Bangs as there are pocket universes. I can see that the KCA can't be used under inflationary cosmology to argue for an external cause of our universe as though ours is the only universe. But can someone recast the KCA (sort of as we were speculating last year)? Something like If something had a beginning, it had a cause other than itself. The Higgs field had a beginning. Therefore the Higgs field had a cause other than itself. ?? Yes. That's valid. But the sting in the tail of such a re-cast KCA is the Infinite Replication Paradox. By extending the 'envelope' of the KCA to include all of the pocket universes generated by the Higgs field, your envelope is forever growing (exponentially) into an eternal future. Your envelope is already at least 13.82 billion years old and probably much, much older. Even if our pocket universe was the very first to decay, the Higgs field at this time was generating pocket universes at a rate of billions per second. That rate has been doubling every billionth of a nanosecond, ever since our local time began. Just do the math. How many doublings is that? Now apply the Copernican Principle. See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Well, maybe one problem for WLC is the verse in Hebrews that says that Jesus was sacrificed "once for all." (too lazy to look it up) Under inflation, Jesus will have been sacrificed an infinite number of times. So bingo, if Inflationary Cosmology is true, WLC has to do the old Humpty Dumpty dance and say that "once for all" means "once for all" except when it means "an infinite number of times." That would be even more times than Jesus gets re-presented in the papist sacrifice of the MASS! bwa ha ha! I guess WLC could try to get away with the supernaturalizing ad hoc suppositions that you suggested above, i.e. God intervenes to see to it that whatever happens w/ pocket universes just doesn't mess up protestant theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Q. What is the total amount of energy in the universe? 1. The question is meaningless. 2. An infinite amount of energy. 3. The same amount of energy that went into the Big Bang. 4. Enough energy to initiate Cosmic Inflation. 5. Zero - no energy at all. Please indicate which option you think is the answer and also, please say why. Or, if you think the true (scientific, not scriptural) answer is something else, please say what this is. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A note to any non-Christians reading this. Ok, I can't stop you answering this if you really want to. However, I'd politely request that the Christians here be given a decent chance to respond. Shall we say, ten (10) days? So, once Tuesday 25th comes round, this question ceases to be something exclusively for the Christians and is then open to anyone and everyone. Thank you for your cooperation. BAA. Ok Ravenstar! You can put your arm down. What's your answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Zero!!! But I don't know why… just that it all cancels out and you are left with zero. It's an intuitive answer… so if I am right it will be cool to find out why I am. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 This is for Ravenstar. 'The Infinite Book' by John D. Barrow, page 302. "At first one might imagine that enormous quantities of energy would be needed to make a universe, however small. Remarkably, the energy of a universe is zero : Einstein's theory of general relativity ensures that the sum of all the positive energies contributed by all the masses and other forms of energy in the universe exactly cancels out the negative energies of gravitational attraction that exist between them all. Universes are very energy efficient." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'A Brief History of Time : From the Big Bang to Black Holes' by Stephen W. Hawking, page 129. "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." Hawking then explains how this works during the ultra-brief phase of Inflation that followed the Big Bang. "Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. This does not happen in the normal expansion of the universe in which the matter energy density goes down as the universe gets bigger." Today we see the universe expanding and becoming less dense as it does so. This is normal expansion. Inflationary expansion is a whole different ballgame. "It does happen, however, in the inflationary expansion because the energy density of the [false vacuum's] supercooled state remains constant while the universe expands : when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter energy and the negative matter energy both double, so that the total energy remains zero." No matter how many times the universe doubles in size, the total energy remains zero, so an infinitely large universe or ensemble of 'pocket' universes can come into existence and the total energy value will still remain at zero. There is no violation of the conservation of energy in this process. "During the inflationary phase, the universe increases it's size by a very large amount. Thus the total amount of energy availible to make particles becomes very large. As Guth has remarked, 'It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch'..." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Guth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'The Inflationary Universe' by Alan H. Guth, page 247. "The process does not stop here, but goes on forever, producing an infinite number of pocket universes at an ever-increasing rate. A fractal pattern is created, meaning that the sequence of false vacuum, pocket universe and false vaccum does not produce merely one universe, but instead produces an infinite number of universes! In the cosmic shopping mall, an infinity of pocket universes can be purchased for the price of one." Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 25, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2014 ^^^Now enter the christian apologist argument: See how perfectly god balanced everything!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 ^^^Now enter the Christian apologist argument: See how perfectly god balanced everything!?! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh... you mean the Fine-Tuned Universe argument, Prof? As per these...? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=fine+tuning http://www.reasonablefaith.org/search/results?q=fine-tuning http://www.biologos.org/search?s=fine-tuning But wait! What's this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-Tuned_Universe (See Inflationary Cosmology) When we go to a site that has no agenda and no theological axe to grind, what do we see? What does the second sentence of the Inflationary Cosmology section say? "In this framework, with such rapid expansion, the overall shape of the universe at 14 billion years is much less sensitive to initial parameters than the standard big bang model, and thus the fine-tuning issue disappears." So, in the Inflationary framework, not the standard big bang model, the fine-tuning issue... disappears! . . . But Brother Josh had it right. He aced it in post # 10. The observed value of omega is exactly... 1. This a fundamental property of our universe. Fundamental properties of the very early universe, like omega, go on to determine the evolution of everything that follows. Stars, planets, racoons, viruses, glassholes, poison oak, Belgium, etc., etc. Theists cannot accept these things be the result of purely natural processes. They maintain that omega and other fundamental values must have been super-naturally determined in advance, by the fine-tuning hand of a Creator - an Intelligent Designer. Shall we see Alan Guth says about it? "With inflation, it is no longer necessary to postulate that the universe began with a value of omega incredibly close to one. Before inflation, omega could have been 1,000 or 1,000,000, or 0.001 or 0.000001, or even some number further from one. As long as exponential expansion continues for long enough, the value of omega will be driven to one with exquisite accuracy." The Inflationary Universe, page 177. Game over! Thanks, BAA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 To answer the original question. The total amount of energy in the universe, currently, calculates out to zero. I say "currently" because empirical knowledge can always change-- but here, it is the combination of empirical knowledge, mathematics, philosophy, and the basic Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo that, for me, make any change in our current understanding of the universe close to nill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 To answer the original question. The total amount of energy in the universe, currently, calculates out to zero. Correct. I say "currently" because empirical knowledge can always change-- but here, it is the combination of empirical knowledge, mathematics, philosophy, and the basic Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo that, for me, make any change in our current understanding of the universe close to nill. Incorrect. Creation ex nihilo of only this (the observable) universe has been shown to be wrong by inflationary cosmology. Creation ex nihilo of the source of the inflationary process is possible. However, you then have to factor in all of the other universes generated by inflation. A process that's been running for at least 13.82 billion years and proabably much, much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts