Moderator Joshpantera Posted October 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted October 26, 2019 7 hours ago, WalterP said: But I fear that your praise is a little premature. So far I've stressed that no meaningful information can pass through the CMBR 'wall' via electromagnetic radiation. However, there are three other potential ways of probing back to earlier epochs. Ways that do not rely on EM radiation. Pray tell, Walter, what exactly do you fear about my premature praise? That WLC just might be right after all? That a beginning of the universe is provable without direct observation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted October 26, 2019 Author Share Posted October 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Joshpantera said: Pray tell, Walter, what exactly do you fear about my premature praise? That WLC just might be right after all? That a beginning of the universe is provable without direct observation? No. Not that, Josh. It's just that EM radiation is the not the be all and end all of cosmology. As you can see from that graphic, we also have to look at acoustics, gravitational waves and neutrinos. So, lets deal with them in that order. Acoustics Because the very early universe was a dense plasma, the science of sound waves can be used to understand how it would have worked. We even have a decent analogue of that hot, dense plasma, just 93,000,000 miles away, that we can study in (almost) real time. The Sun. These links give an insight into whats involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_mode Applying what we infer to be true for the Sun today, we can then infer what might have been true 13.7 billion years ago. The modes, overtones and harmonics of the density variations in the hot plasma seem to have been 'imprinted' with a pattern that shows up on the CMBR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:WMAP_2010.png But, where did this pattern originate from? Not from anything to do with General Relativity, that's for sure. Hawking and Penrose used only GR in their singularity theory, but GR only deals with the smooth curvature of space-time. It cannot describe the kind of pixelated pattern we see in the CMBR. But, quantum mechanics can. So, cosmologists infer that this pattern is the result of quantum fluctuations, coming from a time when the whole universe was much smaller than an atom. However, this is a conclusion based upon inference and not direct observation. Gravitational Waves These can display themselves in two ways. First, they can 'imprint' B - mode oscillations onto the CMBR. The Bicep2 team mistakenly thought they'd seen this signal, back in 2014. But they were fooled by interstellar dust, masquerading as this signal. So, the jury's still out on this one. We don't yet have a bona fide detection. If that does happen however, it will be taken as the 'smoking gun' of inflation. The other way to observe primordial gravitational waves would be with a space-based detector like LISA. https://www.elisascience.org/ I don't know for sure if they would count as a direct observation or if we'd have to use inference, Josh. Sorry, bout that. Either way, we're still waiting on that news. Neutrinos These little blighters can stream unimpeded through almost anything, so there's no problem with them zipping through the plasma of the early universe and getting through the CMBR wall, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.091301 As you can see from the second link, we now have strong evidence of an effect that neutrino's have on the CMBR. Ok, it's inferential and not a direct detection of the particles themselves, but it's being taken seriously. End run, as of 2019, we still don't have anything more than inference to go on about the Big Bang. So, quite how WLC began claiming that it was 'scientifically proven' and 'scientifically confirmed' in 2007, I really don't know. Thank you. Walter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted October 27, 2019 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2019 Excellent citation, Walter. Very concise presentation you've given. So do you think that a singularity is still on the table from inference? Even if it were, I don't see how Craig could use it to claim "creation ex nihilo" is scientific. The singularity would have already been in existence, not come into existence out of nothing as in biblical "creation ex nihilo." Quantum fluctuations, all of it points toward an already existing, existence of some type, which then goes through inflation and expansion in some way to get to what we're observing now. I don't see any way around this for Craig even if he's granted a singularity, which, according to Penrose, Craig is not. Not yet anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted October 27, 2019 Author Share Posted October 27, 2019 7 hours ago, Joshpantera said: Excellent citation, Walter. Very concise presentation you've given. So do you think that a singularity is still on the table from inference? Even if it were, I don't see how Craig could use it to claim "creation ex nihilo" is scientific. The singularity would have already been in existence, not come into existence out of nothing as in biblical "creation ex nihilo." Quantum fluctuations, all of it points toward an already existing, existence of some type, which then goes through inflation and expansion in some way to get to what we're observing now. I don't see any way around this for Craig even if he's granted a singularity, which, according to Penrose, Craig is not. Not yet anyways. Josh, I think the important point to remember is that Craig cannot use Hawking and Penrose's 1970 theorem to argue for an initial singularity. So long as he continues to say that they and they alone provide the only scientific 'proof' or 'confirmation' of a singularity, then (as we have seen in this thread) he's just dead wrong. The way I like to think of this is a courtroom scenario. The prosecution have built their case on just one piece of evidence. When that evidence is shown to be inadmissible in court, the case is thrown out. This scenario requires that both the prosecution and the defence abide by the ruling of the judge. However, since there is no overall authority to rule about what is posted on the internet, Craig is able to keep on plugging away, as if his case was still valid. But now we know differently. Anything I might say about the origin of the universe would, I'm afraid, be just speculation. Thank you. Walter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 Hello again Josh. Ok, so we've almost done with answering one of those side questions I mentioned earlier in the thread. This one. 3. Why did Hawking and Penrose make these four assumptions in the first place? (Would help us understand where cosmological observations end and where theory takes over.) We can now see that they had to make assumptions, back in 1969, because there was no observed data from the very earliest phases of cosmic evolution. They had no values to plug into their calculations. That's still the case, except that now we have technologies like gravitational wave detectors and satellites that can measure ultra-subtle variations in the CMBR. But these technologies still aren't mature enough to give us any data yet. So, back then they had to go with raw assumptions and just do what they could. You raised the important of historical context a little while back and now its time for me to give some historical context to this side question. The CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1964. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation The timing of this is significant. Please note the publication dates of the singularity papers published by Hawking and Penrose, prior to their 1970 paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology - the very one that Craig relies upon. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57 Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities Roger Penrose Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 – Published 18 January 1965 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1966.0221 The occurrence of singularities in cosmology Stephen William Hawking Published:18 October 1966 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1966.0255 The occurrence of singularities in cosmology. II Stephen William Hawking Published:20 December 1966 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1967.0164 The occurrence of singularities in cosmology. ɪɪɪ. Causality and singularities Stephen William Hawking Published:30 August 1967 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We can see that Hawking and Penrose wrote and published all of their singularity theorems after Penzias and Wilson's publication of their CMBR discovery. This means that H & P would have realized that direct observation of the close vicinity of the initial singularity would have to be done through the opaque scattering of the CMBR. We don't even have to speculate about this because we can see that H & P were aware of this limitation in their 1970 paper. Here is the relevant excerpt from the Appendix of that paper. In a recent paper (Hawking & Ellis 1968) it was shown that, with certain assumptions, observations of the microwave background radiation indicate that not only do the past directed null geodesics from us start ‘ converging again ’ but so also do the timelike ones. As we are concerned only with the null geodesics, the assumptions we shall need will be weaker. The observations show that between the wavelengths of 20 cm and 2 mm the background radiation is isotropic to within 1 % and has a spectrum close to that of a black body at 2.7 K. We shall assume that this spectrum and its isotropy indicate not that the radiation was necessarily created with this form, but that it has undergone repeated scattering. (We do not assume that the radiation is necessarily primeval.) They factored what was then known about the CMBR into their singularity paper. They realized that what was being observed was radiation that had undergone repeated scattering. Which rendered it unable to convey any meaningful information about the very earliest epochs, when the effects of the initial singularity would have been most visible. Hence their need to proceed by assumptions. So, even if Craig isn't aware that CMBR wall prevents direct observation of the singularity, Hawking and Penrose certainly were, back in 1970. Another strike against Craig! Thank you. Walter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 5, 2019 Author Share Posted November 5, 2019 Ok guys. Here's something about the Cosmological Constant that not only explains something about it but also pulls it together with other stuff you may have heard of. Closed, Flat and Open universes. The Big Crunch, Big Freeze and Big Rip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant The Wiki article does a reasonable job of explaining what the cosmological constant (hereafter, CC) is, but I think it helps to understand a bit more about the historical context of Einstein’s dissatisfaction with the field equations of General Relativity (hereafter, GR). These days most people understand that the Milky Way galaxy is just one of many galaxies and that they are all in motion, moving with respect to each other. But this was not the case in first twenty years of the 20th century. For centuries before that, men of science believed that the universe was static, unchanging and eternal. New stars were born to replace those that died, but the overall shape and behaviour of the universe didn’t change on the largest scales. These ‘largest scales’ were also different from what we understand today. Up until 1923 it was generally believed that what we call the Milky way galaxy was the entire universe. The very concept of an individual galaxy wasn’t even part of mainstream cosmology. Various spiral-shaped smudges of light could be seen, but the telescopes of that time couldn’t tell whether these were small, nearby gas clouds spinning around a central core or hugely distant, spiral systems of billions of stars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy In 1917, Heber Curtis observed nova S Andromedae within the "Great Andromeda Nebula" (as the Andromeda Galaxy, Messier object M31, was then known). Searching the photographic record, he found 11 more novae. Curtis noticed that these novae were, on average, 10 magnitudes fainter than those that occurred within our galaxy. As a result, he was able to come up with a distance estimate of 150,000 parsecs. He became a proponent of the so-called "island universes" hypothesis, which holds that spiral nebulae are actually independent galaxies. Einstein was writing his theory of GR before it was generally accepted that our galaxy is not the whole universe. He held to the idea that there was no large-scale motion to be seen in the universe (i.e., only the Milky Way) and was therefore troubled when his GR equations didn’t successfully describe the static universe, he believed existed. Because gravity is exclusively attractive in GR, his calculations lead to an unstable universe that collapsed inwards upon itself. This was not the result he wished to see. So, he postulated something new. He added an ‘anti-gravitational’ term to his equations, trying to exactly balance the rate of the universe’s collapse, with an opposing, repulsive force of equal strength. This was the cosmological constant. In the mid 1920’s, when Edwin Hubble found evidence that ours was not the only galaxy and that they were all moving away from each other Einstein dropped the CC from his GR equations. There was no longer any need to postulate the CC to achieve a static universe. Observations clearly showed that the universe was not static on the largest scales. It wasn’t until the 1980’s and the advent of Inflationary theory that cosmology entertained the idea that gravity could be reversed and made to ‘push’ instead of ‘pull’. But that’s another story. In the mid 1960’s Stephen Hawking realized that Roger Penrose’s collapsing star (black hole) singularity theory had an interesting feature that he could use in a novel way. Because Einstein’s GR equations do not have a fixed and absolute frame of reference in either time or space, the direction of time could be reversed in the calculations, without disturbing the accuracy of the results. So, if a collapsing star of high enough mass inevitably leads to a black hole and a singularity, then the time-reversed version of that scenario is equally valid. Just as a black hole pulls in space-time, matter and energy, so a time-reversed version would ‘push out’ space-time, matter and energy. In GR, both scenarios are equally valid. In 1969 Hawking and Penrose worked together to write their 1970 paper, ‘The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology’, concluding that according to only GR, the universe must have had a definite beginning, with an initial singularity as the ultimate source of all the entire universe. One of the advantages of using a time-reversed singularity was that Hawking and Penrose could partially explain why the universe was expanding, with galaxies moving away from each other. The following questions highlight the problem. If gravity is always attractive in GR, why is it that we observe the universe expanding? What was it that caused the galaxies to begin moving apart in the first place? Surely there’s nothing in GR that can cause gravity to ‘push’ and not ‘pull’? Einstein dropped the CC from his GR field equations and it played no part in cosmology up until the 1980’s. So how did Hawking and Penrose get GR to ‘push’ and describe an expanding universe, back in 1970, without using the CC? Here’s their solution. They realized that if in a normal, forward-moving time frame a black hole singularity always ‘pulls’, then in a reversed and backward-moving time frame, the opposite kind of singularity must always ‘push’. Their time-reversed singularity provides the necessary ‘push’ that causes the universe to expand and causes the galaxies to begin moving away from each other. After the initial push of the Big Bang, they expected the universe to do one of two things. The mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe might be enough to eventually overcome the inertia of the initial push, leading to the expansion slowing down, stopping and then reversing into a contraction. This is called the Closed Universe scenario. The shrinking universe becomes hotter and hotter as its contents are squeezed more and more tightly together. The popular name for this is the Big Crunch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch Or, the gravity of the universe’s matter might exactly equal the force of the initial push, leading to a Flat universe. Here, the galaxies coast slowly apart from each other forever. The universe doesn’t collapse, but expands and cools, eventually becoming a cold and sterile void. This is called the Big Freeze. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe As we now know, neither Hawking nor Penrose were expecting a third option – a scenario where the universe’s expansion would be accelerated by some kind of ‘pushing’ force. Enter the Cosmological Constant in 1998, after an absence of 75 years. Their singularity theory was configured to work only in a Closed or Flat universe, where GR is only ‘pulling’ and gravity is only attractive. But the CC is an anti-gravitational force, that ‘pushes’, speeding up the expansion of the universe. It throws a monkey wrench into the gears of GR and makes the H – P singularity theory unworkable in our accelerating universe. Any universe with a positive CC is known as an Open universe and may well lead to what is commonly known as the Big Rip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 6, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2019 On 10/27/2019 at 6:04 AM, WalterP said: Josh, I think the important point to remember is that Craig cannot use Hawking and Penrose's 1970 theorem to argue for an initial singularity. So long as he continues to say that they and they alone provide the only scientific 'proof' or 'confirmation' of a singularity, then (as we have seen in this thread) he's just dead wrong. The way I like to think of this is a courtroom scenario. The prosecution have built their case on just one piece of evidence. When that evidence is shown to be inadmissible in court, the case is thrown out. This scenario requires that both the prosecution and the defence abide by the ruling of the judge. However, since there is no overall authority to rule about what is posted on the internet, Craig is able to keep on plugging away, as if his case was still valid. But now we know differently. Anything I might say about the origin of the universe would, I'm afraid, be just speculation. As would the future of the universe be just speculation by you, me, or anyone else for the same reasons. I generally take all such speculation with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 6, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2019 If or when we're ready for it, I've been reading on WLC's premise. The very premise of accepting "creatio ex nihilo" as biblical requires a lot of assumption on his part. Because it's contested (like the doctrine of the trinity and other contested beliefs) as non-blblical or possibly non-biblical. Craig may be wrong sweeping across the entire board, from theology, to philosophy, and finally to the science. We've been discussing the science. He's just plain wrong for myriad reasons. You've mentioned that you're going to move on and address some religious issues. I've touched on some philosophical issues concerning fixed beginnings. Here's a link for anyone interested in getting up to speed on "creatio ex nihilo" in and of itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo Quote Christian[edit] Bruce K. Waltke wrote an extensive Biblical study of creation theology in which he argues for creation from chaos rather than from nothing - based on the Hebrew Torah and the New Testament texts. The Western Conservative Baptist Seminary published this work in 1974 and again in 1981.[21] On a historical basis, many[quantify] scholars agree that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was not the original intent of the Biblical authors, but instead a change in the interpretation of the texts that began to evolve in the mid-second century AD in the atmosphere of Hellenistic philosophy.[22][23] The idea solidified around 200 AD in arguments and in response to the Gnostics, Stoics, and Middle Platonists.[24]Thomas Jay Oord, a Christian philosopher and theologian, argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars such as Jon D. Levenson, who points out that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does not appear in Genesis. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos, however, did not predate God, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well.[25][page needed] Oord suggests that God can create all things without creating from absolute nothingness.[26] Oord offers nine objections to creatio ex nihilo:[27] Theoretical problem: One cannot conceive absolute nothingness. Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing. Historical problem: The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus first proposed creatio ex nihilo on the basis of assuming the inherently evil nature of creation, and in the belief that God does not act in history. Early Christian theologians adopted the idea to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians now reject. Empirical problem: We have no evidence that our universe originally came into being from absolutely nothing. Creation-at-an-instant problem: We have no evidence in the history of the Universe after the Big Bang that entities can emerge instantaneously from absolute nothingness. As the earliest philosophers noted, out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihilo, nihil fit). Solitary power problem: Creatio ex nihilo assumes that a powerful God once acted alone. But power, as a social concept, only becomes meaningful in relation to others. Errant revelation problem: The God with the capacity to create something from absolutely nothing would apparently have the power to guarantee an unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation (for example: inerrant Bible). An unambiguously clear and inerrant divine revelation does not exist. Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil. Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a 'theology of empire', based upon unilateral force and control of others. Process theologians argue that humans have always related a God to some "world" or another. They[28] also claim that rejecting creatio ex nihilo provides the opportunity to affirm that God has everlastingly created and related with some realm of non-divine actualities or another (compare continuous creation). According to this alternative God-world theory, no non-divine thing exists without the creative activity of God, and nothing can terminate God's necessary existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 6, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2019 There's a lot to read through in the link above. I see the conflict here boiling down to how people perceive in terms of large scale. Those who have difficulty perceiving on the largest of scale, seem to try and tune it all down to something they can wrap their minds around. Those are the people in various cultures (including christianity) who tend to go for the "ex nihilo" type of thinking. It gives them a safe place where their mind can rest. They don't need to thinking any further. It all begins right exactly here! No need to think back any further. Done. End of story. I can see this reflected in various religions and cultures that have gravitated towards "ex nihilo" conclusions. And their arguments are full of problems and holes. You can read through all of the supporting arguments. The other personality types, or thinking types who argue against "ex nihilo" reasoning, do so from a platform of thinking further into the problem despite the possibility of encountering things like infinite regress, past eternal conclusions, and similar lines of thought. They tend to realize that although placing something with a beginning gives us a safe place to just stop and let it go, we can't actually just stop and let it go for all of these reasons. And then lay out all of the reasons. These are deeper thinkers. And the opposing christian arguments against "ex nihilo" tend to reflect deeper thinking than that of where WLC currently stands. Craig simply hasn't thought this through far or deep enough. That's evident and demonstrable from several fronts ranging from theology, philosophy and science. In each case, he hasn't gone far enough. He stopped short. This is a major polemic we have going here against Craig, but what else can be said? It's just that bad. We're not just making it up. We're not just bullying the poor bastard. He's way, way, way off in all of these various disciplines. By way off, I mean launching untenable claims in all of those areas. This problem is much bigger than just a scientific problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 6, 2019 Author Share Posted November 6, 2019 Josh, Agreed. There's a lot to go through in the stuff you've linked to and I don't have time right now to do it all justice. Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to save this until later on, because we still have other aspects of cosmology to cover and then the epistemic and philosophical issues of how Craig uses and misuses the science. So, thanks for this and we will get back to it, I promise you. As to Craig making serious errors, if you recall I said that he'd shot himself in the foot by using a theory (H & P's 1970 singularity paper) that had been falsified before he went on online with his arguments at Reasonablefaith.com. Well, in the body of what I posted yesterday is material that I can use to show how Craig has shot himself in the other foot! (Ouch!) Before I can actually say where and how, it's best if you and Disillusioned read and digest what I've written. Thank you. Walter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 On 10/24/2019 at 6:44 AM, Joshpantera said: . Because science itself is prohibited from ever making such a firm claim. If you would, could you please clarify what you meant by 'science itself is prohibited' in regards to the issue of the origin of the universe. Who or what prohibits science from making a firm claim? Do you mean God controls science? The reason I ask is because in theology things are prohibited but not by God but the doctrine of the Church. I know in theology your funding ends if you talk about the 'Gods' who created the heaven and the earth. On 10/19/2019 at 9:26 AM, Joshpantera said: 14:50 - Penrose: The Big Bang was not the beginning. So there was something prior to the Big Bang Right, the big bang is the end of the universe from its previous state in which all space, matter and energy was in a highly condensed state at which point it rapidly expanded to form the presently known and observed universe. Personally I don't think that you could condense all space and matter into a single space of an atom, since no two objects of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. However, I don't have a problem perceiving that we are inside that we are looking at from outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 7, 2019 Author Share Posted November 7, 2019 This might be of interest to you, Justus. This graphic shows the surface of the Earth displayed first as a flat plane. Like any ordinary map, the dimension of height is compressed down to zero. So, even Mount Everest has no height in the Earth on the left. In the next step the sides of the Earth are folded round and in the last one on the right they seamlessly meet up and the flat, square Earth is transformed into a hollow sphere. There's nothing inside the sphere, because the dimension of height (or depth) has instead been compressed into the surface. This is how scientists usually display the geometry of the universe, using the balloon analogy. They compress one dimension into a surface. Therefore, anything that exists inside the three dimensions of the sphere (but not in the interior volume of it) can never reach or find a boundary or edge. Such a universe is said to be 'unbounded' to anyone living in it. Which is why cosmology doesn't require a hard, physical edge to compress or decompress its contents. Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 8, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 1:05 PM, Justus said: If you would, could you please clarify what you meant by 'science itself is prohibited' in regards to the issue of the origin of the universe. Who or what prohibits science from making a firm claim? Prohibited from observing before the CMBR is the only context we've been discussing. This has been an ongoing part of the discussion, the universe prior was opaque. Then on the current page the question has continued in terms of what way science can try and glean something about the origin of the universe outside of direct observation. But the overall idea here is that science hasn't the ability to know for sure whether or not the universe had any fixed beginning, because we're prohibited by the CMBR observational boundary we've been discussing. Science certainly hasn't proven that the universe did have a fixed beginning singularity, which, is what WLC has been falsely claiming since the 90's even though the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theory had already been falsified via data by that time. He's still making the falsified claim now, despite the fact that it was falsified before even took up the argument in the first place. On 11/7/2019 at 1:05 PM, Justus said: Do you mean God controls science? The reason I ask is because in theology things are prohibited but not by God but the doctrine of the Church. Obviously not, my beliefs state clearly that I do not believe in gods. And theological prohibitions are a different issue entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 8:17 PM, Joshpantera said: But the overall idea here is that science hasn't the ability to know for sure whether or not the universe had any fixed beginning, because we're prohibited by the CMBR observational boundary we've been discussing. So the nature of the universe itself doesn't teach us that it had a beginning or not. Ex nihilo nihil fit seems to indicate by default that the universe would not have a beginning if creatio nihilo fit is impossible. On 11/7/2019 at 4:44 PM, WalterP said: Therefore, anything that exists inside the three dimensions of the sphere (but not in the interior volume of it) can never reach or find a boundary or edge. Such a universe is said to be 'unbounded' to anyone living in it. Which is why cosmology doesn't require a hard, physical edge to compress or decompress its contents. No offense intended but that is complete BS, that which is inside the sphere would be bounded by the exterior of the expanse, more specifically by the curvature of the sphere itself. A finite object by it very nature has a hard, physical edge seeing that it occupies a definite amount of space. However, we know the universe is not a infinite body since an infinite body of space would occupy all space at all time yet the universe is said to be expanding. Since an infinite body of space would already occupy all space therefore if it is expanding I fail to see how the assumption isn't made that the universe is finite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 12, 2019 Author Share Posted November 12, 2019 6 hours ago, Justus said: No offense intended but that is complete BS, that which is inside the sphere would be bounded by the exterior of the expanse, more specifically by the curvature of the sphere itself. No offence taken, Justus. If you check my two posts for your attention I clearly stated that the interior volume, that is, the inside of the sphere, did not figure in any way in the geometry of the universe in modern cosmology. I also said that only the surface of the sphere that is of relevance, because that surface has no edge or boundary. Therefore, if the contents of the surface are compressed by the shrinkage of the sphere, there is no need of a hard boundary to compress them. The shrinkage (or expansion) of the space itself does the compression. An ordinary, 3-dimensional sphere has no depth to it's surface and so isn't used in cosmology. But a 4-dimensional hypersphere does have the needed extra dimension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersphere Please remember that just because something isn't understood, that doesn't make it BS. I don't understand the technical details of optometry, but I know that it works and that it's not BS. 6 hours ago, Justus said: A finite object by it very nature has a hard, physical edge seeing that it occupies a definite amount of space. However, we know the universe is not a infinite body since an infinite body of space would occupy all space at all time yet the universe is said to be expanding. Since an infinite body of space would already occupy all space therefore if it is expanding I fail to see how the assumption isn't made that the universe is finite. An infinity is not what you think it is, Justus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel Infinities are not fixed entities. They can be added to and they can grow. Again, because you and I don't necessarily understand something, that doesn't make it BS. Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 17, 2019 Author Share Posted November 17, 2019 I went here on Friday. https://www.ukastroshow.com/ Also went to this lecture. https://www.ukastroshow.com/profile-6/ This was about the cosmological constant (aka, Dark Energy) and the accelerating universe. Even though Fellowes isn't a scientist as such, he's a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and seems to know his stuff. When the Q & A session came round I asked about reconciling two apparently contradicting results. The 1998 supernova data shows that we inhabit an accelerating Open universe, with a positive (Lambda) cosmological constant. But the CMBR tests run by satellites show that our universe is Flat, implying a Lambda value of zero. Fellowes replied that, unlike dark matter, where there are several converging lines of evidence, dark energy has only one line of evidence for it - the supernova data. He reckoned that the tension between the two data sets would be resolved by future measurements and that the disagreement would vanish in favour of there being no dark energy and a Flat universe. Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 17, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2019 4 hours ago, WalterP said: Fellowes replied that, unlike dark matter, where there are several converging lines of evidence, dark energy has only one line of evidence for it - the supernova data. He reckoned that the tension between the two data sets would be resolved by future measurements and that the disagreement would vanish in favour of there being no dark energy and a Flat universe. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 18, 2019 Author Share Posted November 18, 2019 24 minutes ago, Joshpantera said: Interesting. Yes Josh. And here's one of the reasons why I'm not wed to any particular model of cosmology. They all depend on evidence and where there's sufficient wiggle room for several competing theories to interpret poorly-defined evidence, we can't say which one is the best. As I said to Pantheory a few days ago, I'm waiting for the final data release from the Gaia satellite, the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, the completion of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope and the European Extremely Large Telescope. When these are up and running they should be able to reduce the wiggle room and zero in on the best cosmological model. https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/release https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/status/index.html https://www.lsst.org/ https://www.eso.org/public/unitedkingdom/teles-instr/elt/ If Dark Energy gets ruled out, then we could be back to a Closed or Flat universe, but that would still mean that Inflation invalidates the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory. Catch is, Inflation can only be currently inferred to have happened, so Craig's position will look less precarious. Thank you. Walter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 23, 2019 Author Share Posted November 23, 2019 Hello again Disillusioned and Josh. If you follow this link ... https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/how-do-i-interpret-general-relativity-theory ...you'll see that Craig rejects the interpretation of General relativity that is used by the mainstream scientific community. This interpretation is the basis for the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, the currently-accepted model of modern cosmology. It's also the interpretation that was used by Hawking and Penrose, when they wrote all of their singularity theories. So, their 1970 paper, The Singularities of gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, uses an interpretation of general relativity that Craig... rejects. Yes, you read that right. He rejects it. But that leads me to reject, not general relativity, but a four-dimensionalist interpretation of general relativity. I see gravitation, not as spacetime curvature but as a force, just like the other forces of nature such as electromagnetism. I can't overstate strongly enough how crazy this sounds to me. Without a four-dimensional curvature of space-time, how can there be any kind of singularity? So, black hole singularities aren't where the curvature of space-time becomes infinite? And just how do the forces of nature, that act ONLY within space and time, cause the initial singularity - where space and time themselves come into existence? In one sweep Craig has rejected what general relativity offered him, thanks to the work of Hawking and Penrose. I just don't get it. Your friend has evidently bought uncritically into presentations of general relativity in terms of spacetime as a literalistic piece of metaphysics, rather than taking spacetime as a heuristic device for expounding the theory. If space-time is just a heuristic device for expounding the theory, then the scientific community seems to be using it improperly, to promote space-time as being physically real. Just as Craig is using an epistemic truth improperly, to promote singularity theory as being physically real. Pot. Kettle. Black? Lastly, please consider this. It is true that because I am persuaded that a tensed theory (or so-called A-theory) of time is true (according to which temporal becoming is real and there is an objective difference between past, present, and future), I hold to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity (according to which absolute simultaneity and length exist, even if we are unable to measure them due to the effects of uniform motion upon our measuring instruments). For the same reason, I reject four-dimensionalism or spacetime realism (a so-called B-theory of time, according to which all events in time are on an ontological par). Mainstream science uses the B-theory of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time For example, the equations of Newtonian physics describe events going forward in time or going backwards in time equally well. The formula used to describe the motion of planet going around a star has no time function incorporated into it. Newtonian gravity deals only with the forces acting between objects. Time has no effect on the quantity or values of the forces in equations. In the same way Einsteinian gravity deals only with the curvature of space-time. The basis of Special and General relativity is that there is NO absolute measure of time or location. Everything is relative, not absolute. So, if Craig imposes an absolute measure of time on a theory that was designed to be relative, then he shoots himself in the foot, when it comes to what the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory gives him - a definite beginning of time and space. We know this is the case, because they say so. (Emphasis is mine.) A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking. https://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf Chapter 3, The Expanding Universe. Page 8. In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. I soon realized that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that the collapse became an expansion, the conditions of his theorem would still hold, provided the universe were roughly like a Friedmann model on large scales at the present time. Penrose’s theorem had shown that any collapsing star must end in a singularity; the time-reversed argument showed that any Friedmann-like expanding universe must have begun with a singularity. For technical reasons, Penrose’s theorem required that the universe be infinite in space. So, I could in fact, use it to prove that there should be a singularity only if the universe was expanding fast enough to avoid collapsing again (since only those Friedmann models were infinite in space). During the next few years I developed new mathematical techniques to remove this and other technical conditions from the theorems that proved that singularities must occur. The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691168449/the-nature-of-space-and-time Chapter 2, Structure of Spacetime Singularities. Roger Penrose. P28/29. Stephen Hawking (1965) observed, very early on, that one can also turn my original argument upside down on a cosmological scale, i.e., apply it to a time-reversed situation. A reversed trapped surface then implies that there had been a singularity in the past (making appropriate causality assumptions). Now, the (time-reversed) trapped surface is very large, being on a cosmological scale. You see guys, it's the lack of absolute time that first allowed Hawking to reverse the flow of time in Penrose's equations for a black hole singularity. The B theory of time allows that. Hawking reversed it and change inevitable collapse to inevitable expansion. By rejecting the B theory for the A, Craig has taken that flexibility away. Even though he clearly doesn't realize it, he's emasculated the very theory that he bases his cosmology and his apologetic arguments upon. Thank you. Walter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Well, that just makes it seem like Craig doesn't know what he's talking about at all. Accepting general relativity but rejecting spacetime curvature? Please. That's pretty much the essence of the theory. This is like saying "I accept that the ocean exists, but I reject the existence of water". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted November 25, 2019 Author Share Posted November 25, 2019 10 hours ago, disillusioned said: Well, that just makes it seem like Craig doesn't know what he's talking about at all. Accepting general relativity but rejecting spacetime curvature? Please. That's pretty much the essence of the theory. This is like saying "I accept that the ocean exists, but I reject the existence of water". I'm only guessing Disillusioned, but perhaps because the Bible begins and ends with the creation and destruction of the cosmos, maybe Craig feels theologically constrained to have an absolute flow of time in his cosmology - where there is a definite beginning and a definite end? On another front, this... http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ (What is Dark Energy?) ...could be relevant to this thread. This paragraph caught my eye. The cosmological constant in this model is not extracted from one observation in particular, but from a combination of observations. Notably that is the distribution of matter in the universe, the properties of the cosmic microwave background, and supernovae redshifts. Dark energy is necessary to make the concordance model fit to the data. At the I.A.S. lecture I attended, the speaker said that there was only one line of evidence for the cosmological constant - supernovae redshifts. But I'd put more trust in what Sabine H says, seeing as she's a top-ranked scientist and he wasn't. It seems there are three lines of evidence for the CC. This makes Craig's cosmology very precarious indeed. It's much harder to argue against something indicated by converging lines of evidence. But now I have to wait and see what Sabine says. She's not sold on the CC and thinks that a type of MOND can be used to explain the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics Maybe I'll check and see if the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory is compatible with it. But not just yet. Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share Posted January 25, 2020 Hello again Disillusioned and JoshPantera. This post is just to tell you about something that happened to me a few weeks ago, that's relevant to this thread. It confirms and reinforces the ground we've already covered and I thought it best to lead off with this before we pick up with the thread proper. Anyway, while I was recuperating my cousin Mervyn brought me a book he'd picked up for just £10 in a second-hand bookshop. (Hmm... that makes it sound like the shop was second-hand.) Moving on. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe Roger Penrose Vintage Books, 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality So I checked through it and found two sections that are directly relevant to our discussions in this thread. I've added some of my thoughts at the end of each quote. Chapter 19:7 Further issues: cosmological constant; Weyl tensor Page 462 – 463 At this point we should consider the additional term that Einstein introduced in 1917, called the cosmological constant. This is an exceedingly tiny constant quantity Lambda, whose actual presence is strongly suggested by modern cosmological observations, but which cannot differ from 0 by more than the very tiny amount of about 10-55 cm-2. It has no direct observational relevance until cosmological scales are reached. (Discussion of the conservation equation and the introduction of Lambda into the calculation) The Lambda contribution is extremely tiny and, indeed, the extra pressure terms are also normally very tiny compared to the energy, roughly speaking because the little particles that make up the material in question are moving around relatively slowly, compared with the speed of light. However, the pressure contribution to active gravitational mass do play significant roles under certain extreme conditions. When a very massive star is getting close to a situation where it is in danger of it collapsing under its own inward gravitational pull, we find that an increased pressure in the star, which we might expect to help keep the star supported, actually increases the tendency to collapse because of the extra gravitational mass that it produces! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The last paragraph is highly significant. As we have seen from looking at Hawking and Penrose's 1970 paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, a positive cosmological constant means that their theory cannot be applied to this universe. And this is the very theory that WLC uses to 'prove' that science and the Bible agree. Above, Penrose shows that a positive cosmological constant has a significant effect on the behaviour of collapsing stars, just before they become black hole singularities. While this might not seem to have any relevance to the other kind of singularity, the initial singularity that Hawking and Penrose theorized was the beginning of the universe, it does. The reason why is that these two singularities are mirror-images of each other. In 1965 Penrose wrote his ground-paper on how collapsing stars MUST become black hole singularities. Later, Hawking turned Penrose's calculations around and applied them to a time-reversed singularity, showing that what is true for a collapsing singularity, MUST also be true for an expanding singularity. Therefore, if the cosmological constant has a significant effect upon one it MUST have an equally significant effect upon the other. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 28: 10 Cosmological parameters: observational status? Page 772 – 774. What is the present observational position? Well, things have now shifted very significantly again, with the startling evidence (and from more than one source) that there seems to be a significant positive cosmological constant, Lambda. (Discussion of the mass-energy content of the universe) Then came the bombshell of the cosmological constant. We recall from 19:7 that Einstein regarded the introduction of Lambda as his ‘greatest mistake’ (perhaps mainly because it contributed to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe). Although since then it had always been taken as a possibility by cosmologists, rather few of them seem to have expected to find Lambda to be non-zero in our universe. (Discussion of vacuum energy) Nevertheless, when in 1998 two teams observing very distant supernovae (see 27:8) – one headed by Saul Perlmutter, in California, and the other, headed by Brian Schmidt in Australia and Robert Kirschner in Eastern USA – came to the remarkable conclusion that the expansion of the universe had begun to accelerate, as is consistent with the upward turn in the graph of Fig. 27.15d, which is the hallmark of a positive cosmological constant! How big is this Lambda that seems to be observed? There are still some uncertainties about this (and some theoreticians have argued that the case for a positive Lambda has still not been convincingly made) , but the remarkable conclusion is that the effective mass-energy density Omega/Lambda that Lambda provides , as a fraction of the critical density, is given approximately by Omega/Lambda = 0.7, so we seem to have, for the total effective density, as a fraction of critical Omega/Delta + Omega/Lambda = 0.3 + 0.7 = 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So there we have it. Penrose confirms what we've discussing in this thread. Neither he nor Hawking expected Lambda (the cosmological constant) to have a positive value in this universe. Their paper allows for Lambda to be a negative value or zero, but not for it to be positive. Penrose wrote these words before 2004, when his book was published, so he was aware of and agrees with the ground-breaking discovery of a positive Lambda in 1998/9. Therefore, WLC cannot use the 1970 paper by Hawking and Penrose to 'prove' that Genesis 1:1 is confirmed by science. Thank you. Walter. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 1, 2020 Author Share Posted February 1, 2020 Hello. This post is an update of my reading of Roger Penrose's book, The Road to Reality. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe Roger Penrose Vintage Books, 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality Sometimes, what is excluded from a book is as important as what is included. This seems to be the case with this book. You would think, that since Hawking and Penrose's 1970 paper on singularities is, according to WLC, key to understanding the origin of the universe, it would therefore feature prominently in Penrose's book. After all, how could he possibly write this book and not include his own significant contribution to modern cosmology? Hmmm.... so where is it? Well, here's a breakdown of the contents. Preface Acknowledgements Notation Prologue 1 The roots of science 2 An ancient theorem and a modern question 3 Kinds of number in the physical world 4 magical complex numbers 5 geometry of logarithms, powers and roots 6 Real-number calculus 7 Complex-number calculus 8 Riemann surfaces and complex mappings 9 Fourier decomposition and hypersurfaces 10 Surfaces 11 Hypercomplex numbers 12 Manifolds of n dimensions 13 Symmetry groups 14 Calculus on manifolds 15 Fibre bundles and gauge connections 16 The ladder of infinity 17 Spacetime (Surely it's here, in chapter 17? After all, the initial singularity is the point of origin of all spacetime? But, no. Nothing about any kind of spacetime singularity here.) 18 Minkowskian geometry 19 The classical fields of Maxwell and Einstein 20 Langrangians and Hamiltonians 21 The quantum particle 22 Quantum algebra, geometry and spin 23 The entangled quantum world 24 Dirac’s electron and antiparticles 25 The standard model of particle physics 26 Quantum filed theory 27 The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy · 27.1 Time symmetry in dynamical evolution · 27.2 Submicroscopic ingredients · 27.3 Entropy · 27.4 The robustness of the entropy concept · 27.5 Derivation of the second law – or not? · 27.6 Is the whole universe an ‘isolated system’? · 27.7 The role of the Big Bang · 27.8 Black holes · 27.9 Event horizons and spacetime singularities · 27.10 Black-hole entropy · 27.11 Cosmology · 27.12 Conformal diagrams · 27.13 Our extraordinarily special Big Bang What about chapter 27? The Hawking - Penrose initial singularity is (according to WLC) fundamental to a proper understanding of the Big Bang. So, it MUST be in chapter 27! But... no. None of the thirteen sub-sections refer to or mention the initial singularity in any way. 27.9 refers to black hole singularities, but not to the time-reversed singularity that Hawking and Penrose mathematically 'proved' must be the origin of the universe. 28 Speculative theories of the early universe 29 The measurement paradox 30 Gravity’s role in quantum state reduction 31 Supersymmetry, supra-dimensionality and strings 32 Einstein’s narrower path: loop variables 33 More radical perspectives: twistor theory 34 Where lies the road to reality? Epilogue Bibliography Index So why doesn't Penrose refer to the initial singularity at all in his book? The answer is that he has done exactly the right thing that any scientist should do, when they find their theory falsified by new evidence. They discard the theory and move on. This is what Penrose has done. He accepts that the 1998/9 discovery of a positive cosmological constant prevents the usage of his and Hawkings 1970 theory. So he has discarded it. The theory plays no part in his book. Thank you. Walter. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 5, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 5, 2020 On 2/1/2020 at 4:19 PM, WalterP said: So why doesn't Penrose refer to the initial singularity at all in his book? The answer is that he has done exactly the right thing that any scientist should do, when they find their theory falsified by new evidence. They discard the theory and move on. This is what Penrose has done. He accepts that the 1998/9 discovery of a positive cosmological constant prevents the usage of his and Hawkings 1970 theory. So he has discarded it. The theory plays no part in his book. Thank you. Walter. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 13, 2020 Author Share Posted February 13, 2020 Hello. I'm currently checking the theoretical work of Roger Penrose, specifically in connection with cosmological constant, which is known as Lambda. A few days ago I took this book out on loan from my local library. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-Universe/dp/0099505940 Published in 2010, this is Penrose’s formal exposition of his own cosmological theory, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, which is a proposal that our universe is just one of an eternal cycle of universes. Here is what Penrose has to say about Lambda, the cosmological constant, in this book. Part 2: The oddly special nature of the Big Bang 2.1 Our expanding universe Page 61. "The time-dependence of the actual universe’s expansion, that observation reveal, is indeed in striking accordance with the equations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but apparently only if two somewhat unexpected ingredients are incorporated into the theory, now commonly referred to under the (somewhat unfortunate) names of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’." "Both of these ingredients will have considerable importance for the proposed scheme of things (Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory) that I shall be introducing the reader to in due course." "They are now part of the standard picture of modern cosmology, though it must be said that neither is completely accepted by all experts in the field." "For my own part, I am happy to accept both the presence of some invisible material – dark matter – of a nature that is essentially unknown to us, yet constituting some 70% of the material substance of the universe, and also that Einstein’s equations of general relativity must be taken in the modified form that he himself put forward in 1917 (thought he later retracted it) in which a tiny positive cosmological constant Lambda (the most plausible form of ‘dark energy’) must be incorporated." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Comments Now this is highly significant. Without any kind of equivocation, Penrose shows his hand. He is happy to accept that a positive cosmological constant MUST BE incorporated into Einstein's equations of general relativity. This runs directly and diametrically counter to WLC's promotion of the Hawking - Penrose singularity 1970 theory. WLC is stuck in the 70's, but Penrose has taken note of the 1998 observations that refute his own theory and has moved on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Page 64. (Penrose discusses the three kinds of Friedmann universe; closed, flat and open and how they all begin in a ‘singular’ state. That is, an initial singularity where the curvature of space-time is infinite. Then he writes this.) "Since around 1998, however, when two observational groups, one headed by Saul Perlmutter and the other by Brian P. Schmidt, had been analysing their data concerning very distant supernova explosions, evidence has mounted which strongly indicates that the expansion of the universe in its later stages does not actually match the evolution rates predicted from the standard Friedmann cosmologies that are illustrated in Fig. 2.2." "Instead, it appears that our universe has begun to accelerate in its expansion, at a rate that would be explained if we were to include into Einstein’s equations a cosmological constant Lambda, with a small positive value." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Comments Here Penrose recapitulates his position, as related in his earlier book, The Road to Reality. He accepts that the cosmological constant has a small, but positive value - thus invalidating his own 1970 theory. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3: Conformal Cyclic Cosmology 3.2 The structure of CCC Page 161. ‘It is perhaps significant that the two so-called ‘dark’ quantities (‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’), that have gradually become apparent from detailed cosmological observations in recent decades, both appear to be necessary ingredients of CCC.’ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My Comments Here Penrose goes further than just accepting a positive cosmological constant. He declares that it appears to be a necessary ingredient of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, his own theory to explain our universe. More than that, his discarded singularity theory, which he and Stephen Hawking published in 1970 had a definite beginning of space and time - the initial singularity. Penrose's CCC theory is the total opposite. In CCC our universe is merely one iteration in an eternal and unending cycle of universes. In CCC there is no beginning and no end. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/roger-penrose-interview-part-1/ In 2016 William Lane Craig interviewed Roger Penrose and the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology was a topic of their conversation. As far as I know the subject of the positive cosmological constant was not discussed. Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now