Where Did It All Come From?

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

The word "flat" confused me at first.  Did you see the below? ( Space goes on forever in all directions)

Evidently scientist don't always use the most descriptive and common terminology for what they are trying to explain. 

 

 

I can understand your confusion, guys.

 

 

Evolution hasn't prepared our brains to easily grasp things outside of our Earth-based experiences.  Common sense simply isn't enough.  But advanced math does enable scientists to grapple with these weird and wonderful things.  Catch is, those who can't do the math (you and me) are left far behind and struggle with what they are saying.

 

But I wouldn't worry about it here.  Let's just say that they use their calculations to make predictions and when those predictions are confirmed by data and evidence we can have confidence that they're on the right track.

 

So, the evidence indicates that the universe is infinitely large, stretching away forever in every direction.  If the eggheads want to call this kind of universe 'geometrically flat' then fine, let them.

 

While I can't do the math I can envisage what they mean by this.  But can I successfully communicate that to you?  I'm not sure.  If you want me to try, please let me know.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

If you mean that time is infinite, I already believe that.  Well, at least the future.  It is always ahead of us, and who knows how far back it goes.  But go ahead with your explanation if you think I need it.

 

 

Ok Weezer.

 

Later.

[walterpthefirst]

Weezer,

 

One kind of theory that describes an infinitely old universe replaces the Big Bang with a Big Bounce.

 

[1411.7887] Bang or Bounce (arxiv.org)

 

In simple terms it describes an endless series of Big Bangs which are caused by the collapse of an earlier universe into an extremely hot and dense state, just like the one I described earlier by running the clock back in our universe.  The stars and galaxies get compressed, heat up, dissolve into pure energy and then quantum mechanics causes the collapse to stop, bounce and reverse itself into an expansion.  

 

So what we get are an eternal series of universes, with random factors deciding what they contain.  But the history of each one is totally erased by the hot bounce, leaving no trace of what went before in the next universe.  So, intelligent beings in any given universe will be forever ignorant of any other universes (or intelligent beings) that precede or follow them.

 

The author doesn't use the word 'multiverse' to describe this process because there is only one universe in existence at any given time.  Instead he calls it an 'infiniverse' sliding the words infinity and universe together.

 

There are other kinds of cyclic universes that have been theorized and their behaviours are very similar to this one, with complete erasure of what went before usually happening.  Like this bouncing universe theory they are usually considered to be eternal, thus removing the need for an originating event.  Cyclic universes require no origin or creation, they have always existed and always will.

 

All of this is completely theoretical, of course.  There is no way to investigate the existence of universes beyond, before or after ours.  Not unless they leave some kind of detectable imprint in our universe.  Inflation theory suggests that what went 'before' our Big Bang might leave some kind of gravitational wave imprint on our universe.

 

If we are going to talk about Inflation then we are dealing with a multiverse.

 

Would you like me to explain something about Inflation, Weezer?  There are infinites involved in that theory too.  Please let me know.

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter.

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If we are going to talk about Inflation then we are dealing with a multiverse.

 

Would you like me to explain something about Inflation, Weezer?  There are infinites involved in that theory too.  Please let me know.

 

I get the idea of inflation and bounce theory.  No need for further explanation for me, but someone else might want it?

 

What is the next step?

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

I get the idea of inflation and bounce theory.  No need for further explanation for me, but someone else might want it?

 

What is the next step?

 

Well, I can see two possible next steps, Weezer.

 

1.

I explain what's happening in our search for evidence to tell us which theory is the best at describing the universe.

 

2.

I ask you if your overarching question (Where Did It All Come From?) has been answered to you satisfaction?

 

 

If you opt for 1 then I'll explain a bit more about how scientists are looking for that evidence.

 

If you opt for 2 and say Yes, then I guess it's up to TABA to invite Pantheory back to take his next shot.

 

If you opt for 2 and say No, then I'll need to ask you what it is you want to know.  

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

My overarching question was not answered, but I appreciate the information you gave.
 

I guess Pantheory is up next. 

[walterpthefirst]

Posted Wednesday at 10:14 PM

  On 2/28/2024 at 6:48 PM, Weezer said:

 

You and whoever else wants to, can discuss it all you want.   But please answer this question with a yes or no. Does anyone at this point in time know where it all came from?

 

The answer is no, Weezer.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Umm... wasn't your overarching question answered last Wednesday, Weezer?

 

Nobody knows where it all came from.  But there are theories that seem to predict and agree with what we observe. How could it be otherwise?

 

We can't visit any other galaxies to see make observations from, we can't visit other universes (if they exist) and we can't see the universe as it exists now - we can only see other galaxies as they were millions and billions of years ago.  Which means working on assumptions based upon what we can work out, here on Earth and then extrapolating those assumptions to places and times we can never visit.

 

So the kind of direct testing and experimentation that leads (say) geologists to know things about granite just isn't possible for astronomers and cosmologists.

 

All we can do is to try and match observations to theory.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[TABA]

@Weezerdid you want to ask Walter any more questions at this stage?  If not, I’ll invite @pantheory to resume his comments on the topic if he wishes.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I already indicated (above) that Pantheory could have the floor, but go ahead and invite him. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Posted Wednesday at 10:14 PM

  On 2/28/2024 at 6:48 PM, Weezer said:

 

You and whoever else wants to, can discuss it all you want.   But please answer this question with a yes or no. Does anyone at this point in time know where it all came from?

 

The answer is no, Weezer.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Umm... wasn't your overarching question answered last Wednesday, Weezer?

 

Nobody knows where it all came from.  But there are theories that seem to predict and agree with what we observe. How could it be otherwise?

 

We can't visit any other galaxies to see make observations from, we can't visit other universes (if they exist) and we can't see the universe as it exists now - we can only see other galaxies as they were millions and billions of years ago.  Which means working on assumptions based upon what we can work out, here on Earth and then extrapolating those assumptions to places and times we can never visit.

 

So the kind of direct testing and experimentation that leads (say) geologists to know things about granite just isn't possible for astronomers and cosmologists.

 

All we can do is to try and match observations to theory.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

i am sorry I don’t always answer your questions EXACTLY like you think I should.   I appreciate you helping me to a better understanding of the Big Bang, but let’s give it a rest and let Pantheory have the floor. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

38 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I already indicated (above) that Pantheory could have the floor, but go ahead and invite him. 

 

On 3/1/2024 at 12:01 PM, pantheory said:

 The simplest logical answer to a problem or question is always more likely to be true than more complicated answers, all else being equal. That's the principle of Occam's Razor.

No. It isn't. The principle of Occam's Razor is that unnecessary facets should not be added to an explanation, if the explanation works without them. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate (‘multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity’) essentially means that when alternative hypotheses exist, the one requiring the fewest assumptions should be preferred. This does not mean that the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct; only that, if an explanation has fewer unknowns or unexplainable factors, it should be considered the better explanation. And that, once a reasonable explanation is given, additional unknowns or unexplainable factors should not be needlessly attached to it.

 

"Rain makes crops grow" is the simplest explanation; but that explanation fails to take into account soil pH, atmospheric conditions, environmental factors, and proper fertilization. It is, therefore, not the most correct explanation, because it is too simple. But an explanation that involves rain dances and sacrifices to the corn gods is also not the most correct explanation, because it posits facts not in evidence, assumptions, unknowns, and inexplicables. In fact, this latter explanation raises more questions than it answers. It is, therefore, too complicated. It is these extraneous postulations that Occam's Razor seeks to eliminate, while keeping intact the core explanation that covers the necessary points of the subject. Occam's Razor is the Goldilocks principle of the intellectual world, requiring that an explanation be neither too complicated nor too simple, but, rather, "just right."  So, in this case: "Proper soil pH, conducive environmental factors, correct atmospheric conditions, fertilization and sufficient irrigation (without appealing to corn gods or performing rain dances) makes crops grow" is the correct explanation. It covers all of the necessary points and can provide evidentiary support for each, while not positing further assumptions that lend nothing to the explanation itself. 

[pantheory]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:15 AM, TABA said:

@Weezerdid you want to ask Walter any more questions at this stage?  If not, I’ll invite @pantheory to resume his comments on the topic if he wishes.  

 

Thanks so much TABA. and Weez. I hope there are other questions since this is a very important subject and a question for both Christians, X-Christians, scientists, and all others who would be interested in how a finite-in-time universe could have begun, which is today's BB model.  The subject concerning how the universe began is called Cosmogony. For Astronomers, Astrophysicists, and other scientists for more than a decade, mainstream cosmology has had generally nothing to say about this subject and question since the beginning of the universe was deleted from the theory for good reason . But there are a great many non-mainstream hypotheses offered.

 

https://bigthink.com/13-8/big-bang-does-not-explain-cosmic-creation/

 

Maybe a short history lesson could be helpful here. For countless millennia each culture and civilization has had their own creation myths.  A type of religion has often been a the heart of these myths. During the Renaissance and the advent of Heliocentrism (the Earth rotates around the sun) there were generally few new "how did it all begin" hypothesis since our Milky Way galaxy was believed to be the entire universe and many non-religious astronomers at that time began to believe that the universe has always existed so there would be no question concerning a beginning if true.

 

But even to this day most people are religious and most all religions have a creation story. For the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Muslims) our present religious "myths" began with Judaism roughly 4 thousand years ago. After the Renaissance and heliocentrism, many believed our sun was just another star, one of countless numbers of stars since the telescope was invented at the beginning of the 1600's and Galileo was one of its first users and a co-inventor of his own model. 

 

About a hundred years ago Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift of some globular clusters which appeared to be redshifted. His conjecture was that they were other galaxies like our own, and not part of the Milky Way, which then became the name of our own galaxy.

 

Soon thereafter a Belgium Catholic Priest and Physicist, Georges Lemaître, proposed the Big Bang theory, which was a theory of cosmogony. It proposed the beginning stages of the universe. It was called the Cosmic Egg Theory by Lemaître, and the fireworks theory by others and sometimes himself. It was based upon a beginning small atom-like structure that exploded to become the expanding universe.

 

Following the second world war George Gamow, an atomic physicist,  began with his theory that explained the radioactive alpha particle decay of atomic nuclei and became famous with his cosmological studies and theory. He is known for the "big bang" theory of the origin of the universe,"based upon his books " The Creation of the Universe" and "1,2,3 Infinity," popular books using common language, promoting the Big Bang Theory based upon atomic explosion theory including some atomic physics equations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow

 

At the same time, late 40's early 50's, astronomers Fred Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi from England, came up with their own cosmological model called the Steady State theory of the universe, proposing that the universe was infinitely large and old, but the theory also included the expansion of the universe based upon the redshifts discovered by Hubble. To account for a uniform density as their steady state model included, they proposed the creation of new matter from several possible sources to account for a steady state condition.

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/steady-state-theory

 

Lesser known models proposing an infinite, but static universe with only local galactic evolutionary cycles within them were Called Static Universe models which did not include the expansion of the universe or the creation of new matter, where other explanations explained galactic redshifts.

 

About a decade later in the late 1950's there were primary two widely known models of the universe. The Big Bang model primarily promoted by the U.S., and the Steady State model primarily promoted by England. The Steady State model, and its versions, are an Infinite universe  proposal, therefore there was no beginning of the universe to explain, or where it all came from since there was no beginning to an infinite universe.

 

At that time Pope Pius the XII said that the Big Bang model did not contradict Catholicism and could be proof of the book of Genesis

 

https://inters.org/pius-xii-lemaitre

 

But the Big Bang model did eliminate their own beginning of the universe explanation about 2 decades ago, often referred to as the singularity. The reasons for doing so were that Einstein's cosmological equations, based upon gravity, break down at a beginning of the universe that included infinite density and heat, because the distribution of matter and energy in the universe appeared to be uniform, and not distributed as if it came from a central point or bang, and because Einstein asserted a fourth physical dimension proposing that the universe had no center to expand from. That if one traveled in a straight line one would end up where he started, so there would be no middle to it. They then went from an expanding universe, to the expansion of space, then to new  Inflation Theories to account for the great observed uniformity of the universe.

 

Now we must consider logic. If the universe is infinite in time and space then there would be no beginning of the universe to explain, if God created it, then where did God come from, what was his cause. As Saint Thomas Equines once asked: I wonder what God did for the infinite amount of time that existed before he created the heaven and the Earth? So if the universe had a beginning and had no creator, then how did it start? Again the original BB model addressed this since it was also a theory of Cosmogony, which it no longer is.  Cosmogony is a theory concerning the beginning of the universe, where did it all come from?

 

But by dropping this original BB proposal some valuable logic was also disposed of IMHO concerning a finite universe that had a beginning. They dropped part of the theory included how substance,time and space could have began in the first place in a finite universe model. Consider the following logic: What would be the meaning of a universe with no substance or energy of any kind within it? What would be the meaning of time if nothing anywhere ever changed at all? What would be the meaning of infinite space if nothing of any kind could ever be in it?

 

In his book Stephen Hawking asked what he called the biggest and most important question: why is there something within the universe rather than just nothing? IMHO the answer is simple, nothing at all anywhere, is not a possible state of reality. Stephen Hawking proposed that our universe could have come from the Zero Point Field, regarding a massive fluctuation. Some described this proposal as the universe coming from nothing. But the Zero Point Field has been calculated to have more energy within it than all the mass and energy in the universe combined, so it's not simply nothing.

 

Logic:

 

So back to the original question, Where did it all come from?  Unless you believe something can come from pure nothing at all, then there must have been something to start with which was the first thing. There would have been nothing before that or else it couldn't have been the first thing, or if so, where did that thing come from, etc.?

 

So now we have just the first thing. Is it big? is it small? where is it? what is it doing? If it's the only thing then it cannot be described as big or small since there would be nothing to compare it with, It can't be in motion for if it was, what could this motion be compared to, what? It could have only one possible location, since what would be the meaning of another place? We could call its shape dimensional since today we describe shapes as being three dimensional, length, width, and height. This system is called Cartesian dimensions. But only with its existence this would be the end of our story since nothing would change, so this entity must have had at least one other internal characteristic which would perpetuate its change somehow. In physics we call this characteristic potential energy. So far this explanation was solely part of the original version of the Big Bang model that not all agreed with, but it was a great explanation of cosmogony then IMO.

 

All of these explanations were part of the original BB model, explaining the beginning of substance, time, and space. This potential energy can be described as "the prime mover" the creation of change and time. With the three dimension plus time equated to change then a finite theory of the beginning of cosmology can start like the present BB theory and almost countless others, few others well-known to scientists, and most relate to non-professional theorists. Multiverse theory is no help in the question above, since each universe must have a cause before it in an infinite series.

 

Here is just a very small list of alternative theories in cosmology that have been promoted,  few of which are known to cosmologists and many were created by scientists or theorists in other fields.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

Any further questions about where it all come from?

 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

No. It isn't. The principle of Occam's Razor is that unnecessary facets should not be added to an explanation, if the explanation works without them. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate (‘multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity’) essentially means that when alternative hypotheses exist, the one requiring the fewest assumptions should be preferred. This does not mean that the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct; only that, if an explanation has fewer unknowns or unexplainable factors, it should be considered the better explanation. And that, once a reasonable explanation is given, additional unknowns or unexplainable factors should not be needlessly attached to it.

 

"Rain makes crops grow" is the simplest explanation; but that explanation fails to take into account soil pH, atmospheric conditions, environmental factors, and proper fertilization. It is, therefore, not the most correct explanation, because it is too simple. But an explanation that involves rain dances and sacrifices to the corn gods is also not the most correct explanation, because it posits facts not in evidence, assumptions, unknowns, and inexplicables. In fact, this latter explanation raises more questions than it answers. It is, therefore, too complicated. It is these extraneous postulations that Occam's Razor seeks to eliminate, while keeping intact the core explanation that covers the necessary points of the subject. Occam's Razor is the Goldilocks principle of the intellectual world, requiring that an explanation be neither too complicated nor too simple, but, rather, "just right."  So, in this case: "Proper soil pH, conducive environmental factors, correct atmospheric conditions, fertilization and sufficient irrigation (without appealing to corn gods or performing rain dances) makes crops grow" is the correct explanation. It covers all of the necessary points and can provide evidentiary support for each, while not positing further assumptions that lend nothing to the explanation itself. 

 

The key to understanding Occam's Razor: "the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal. " is the underlined part of the principle.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

The key to understanding Occam's Razor: "the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal. " is the underlined part of the principle.

Except that what you have quoted here isn't in any way, shape, or form part of Occam's Razor at all.  Occam's Razor, as I have already addressed, states: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which literally translates into "multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity."  It has nothing to do with the "simpler" answer, nor does anything need to be equal.  This is why I gave you the precise example of rain making crops grow.  Yes,  it is the "simpler" explanation; it is also incorrect because it fails to address a litany of other factors that go into crop production.  

 

You are misquoting Occam's Razor here; and you are misapplying it as well. Occam's Razor is not interested in the simplest explanation, nor whether things are equal or not.  Rather it is interested in the explanation with the fewest assumptions that also covers the entire subject.  Simply coming up with a simple explanation doesn't make it right. 

 

The problem with your "science" is that it takes too many assumptions as fact, and it fails to make predictions on an equal par to those made by more traditional cosmological models (meaning it fails to cover the entire subject).  

On both of those points, your explanation fails the standard of the Razor.  So, yes, you are misapplying Occam's Razor; and misquoting it will not change that.  As such, your explanation is most likely incorrect; because Occam's Razor is as much a logical device as it is a rhetorical one.  This means we can use the Razor like any other logical device.  As such, not only is your explanation not the preferred one, per Occam's Razor,  it is also most likely NOT the correct one, either, because of how miserably it fails the Razor's standards.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Except that what you have quoted here isn't in any way, shape, or form part of Occam's Razor at all.  Occam's Razor, as I have already addressed, states: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which literally translates into "multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity."  It has nothing to do with the "simpler" answer, nor does anything need to be equal.  This is why I gave you the precise example of rain making crops grow.  Yes,  it is the "simpler" explanation; it is also incorrect because it fails to address a litany of other factors that go into crop production.  

 

You are misquoting Occam's Razor here; and you are misapplying it as well. Occam's Razor is not interested in the simplest explanation, nor whether things are equal or not.  Rather it is interested in the explanation with the fewest assumptions that also covers the entire subject.  Simply coming up with a simple explanation doesn't make it right. 

 

The problem with your "science" is that it takes too many assumptions as fact, and it fails to make predictions on an equal par to those made by more traditional cosmological models (meaning it fails to cover the entire subject).  

On both of those points, your explanation fails the standard of the Razor.  So, yes, you are misapplying Occam's Razor; and misquoting it will not change that.  As such, your explanation is most likely incorrect; because Occam's Razor is as much a logical device as it is a rhetorical one.  This means we can use the Razor like any other logical device.  As such, not only is your explanation not the preferred one, per Occam's Razor,  it is also most likely NOT the correct one, either, because of how miserably it fails the Razor's standards.

 

There are a number versions of Occam's Razor in the English language. The more famous ones can be seen in the link below.

 

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

 

In science and cosmology the most famous and common version of Occam's Razor is the one that I have stated, or similar to it. As you can see in the above link, my quote is similar to one or more embolden below.  In logic I also think that it is obvious, the simpler answer is the better answer if all else (all evidence etc.)  is equally tenable. Since this logic that I have stated above relates to the original logic of the BB theory,  if you don't like it, or the Occam's Razor version that I stated, so be it.

 

in any event cheers      

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, pantheory said:

In logic I also think that it is obvious, the simpler answer is the better answer if all else (all evidence etc.)  is equally tenable. Since this logic that I have stated above relates to the original logic of the BB theory,  if you don't like it, or the Occam's Razor version that I stated, so be it.

Even if I were willing to accept your misquote of Occam's Razor (I'm not, mind you; but for the sake of rhetoric here...), you insist that the operative phrase is "all things being equal."  Since your explanation fails to make predictions on an equal par to the more traditional cosmological models (all things being... equal) your explanation still fails to live up to your own misquoted version of Occam's Razor. 

 

Also, no.  In classical logic, simpler does not equate to correct.  Again, you are overlooking the Goldilocks principle.  

 

This has nothing to do with what I like or what I prefer.  This has to do with being true to the principles we employ in logic, debate, and rhetoric.  Being true begins with a proper understanding of said principles.  "The simplest answer is most likely correct" is not the principle behind Occam's Razor; and insisting it is despite obvious evidence to the contrary merely demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning that principle. 

 

I can also provide links.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

[pantheory]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Even if I were willing to accept your misquote of Occam's Razor (I'm not, mind you; but for the sake of rhetoric here...), you insist that the operative phrase is "all things being equal."  Since your explanation fails to make predictions on an equal par to the more traditional cosmological models (all things being... equal) your explanation still fails to live up to your own misquoted version of Occam's Razor. 

 

Also, no.  In classical logic, simpler does not equate to correct.  Again, you are overlooking the Goldilocks principle.  

 

This has nothing to do with what I like or what I prefer.  This has to do with being true to the principles we employ in logic, debate, and rhetoric.  Being true begins with a proper understanding of said principles.  "The simplest answer is most likely correct" is not the principle behind Occam's Razor; and insisting it is despite obvious evidence to the contrary merely demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning that principle. 

 

I can also provide links.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

 

OK

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, pantheory said:

There are a number versions of Occam's Razor in the English language.

No, there are not.  There is Occam's Razor; and then there are any number of misquotations and misapplications of Occam's Razor.  They are not the same thing.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I understand there is disagreement about Occam's Razor.  Why don't we let Pantheory proceed with his presentation.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

I understand there is disagreement about Occam's Razor.  Why don't we let Pantheory proceed with his presentation.

 

Thanks Weez, but that was my entire presentation. I was not presenting any particular cosmology, just the main models that have been followed by science. I proposed the thinking of the original BB model because that was the only theory of cosmogony that the mainstream once ascribed to.  if  you still have questions please ask them. I believe there is an easy understandable answer to any question you may ask. But remember before, you said that none of my shorter explanations made any sense to you.

 

Read again above and if you don't think your original questiion has been answered then ask additional questions. Again I  am not proposing any cosmology in particular, only that for a finite beginning universe like the BB used to be, and many believe that it still is, then the preceding questions that I explained above need to be answered -- but which I believe are self explanatory.

 

From your questions and my answers, I believe you can make up your mind about what kind of cosmogony theory and universe you wish to believe in. So Shoot

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Wow!  You did a good job of summarizing that in a way I understood.  I was expecting It to be longer.  It was good to see the other views.  Ha!  Maybe my brain was in a fog when I read your former post.

 

It is just hard to wrap my brain around something having always existed.  But as I have thought about it, in some ways that is more logical.  And the bounce theory is even seeming possible.  With yours and Walters info things are more understandable.  Thank you both.

 

Are ther any other views or suggestions?

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

Wow!  You did a good job of summarizing that in a way I understood.  I was expecting It to be longer.  It was good to see the other views.  Ha!  Maybe my brain was in a fog when I read your former post.

 

It is just hard to wrap my brain around something having always existed.  But as I have thought about it, in some ways that is more logical.  And the bounce theory is even seeming possible.  With yours and Walters info things are more understandable.  Thank you both.

 

Are ther any other views or suggestions?

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

 

Are there any other views or suggestions?

 

I do have another comment to make Weezer.

 

All being well I'll do so in a little while.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

Always existed, yes, but for a limited period of time only, that's the catch. "Always" here would mean for all time. There would be no such thing as time before the beginning -- a beginning which began a finite time in the past.

 

Here we are talking about where everything came from. The Bounce theory, like the BB, is a theory of cosmology. But here we are talking about "cosmogony" which is theory of the beginnings of the universe, really before cosmology is involved.

 

Regarding where did everything come from, there are primarily two choices concerning time and when. Either the universe has always existed and time was infinite in the past, or the universe had a finite beginning in the past. My choice is a finite beginning in time, but an infinite universe in time and space has appealed to many others in the past, the latest version was Hoyle's Steady State cosmology, which was updated about 60 years ago.

[walterpthefirst]

This thread has relied completely on what science tells us about the universe and so how science works cannot be untangled from the data, evidence, ideas and concepts discussed in this thread.  If we are wrong or mistaken about what science does or how it should work then this will skew our understanding of this thread just as surely as Einstein's understanding of the universe was skewed by his expectation of what it should have been.

 

We have discussed the use of Occam's Razor in science.  There has been some disagreement about how it should be used.  But the issue of how it should be used is fundamental to all science and fundamental to this thread too.  I would now like to present an example of an ongoing problem in astronomy.  One that demonstrates that an overreliance on or a misuse of Occam's Razor is damaging to our understanding of nature.

 

 

 THE SIMPLE EXPLANATION

In a nutshell the science of thermodynamics tells us that in nature heat always flows from hot to cold.  There are no exceptions to this rule.  Our everyday experience agrees with this and it is a concept we are all readily familiar with.  A campfire is hottest when you are closest to it and not when you are far away.  The more distance you put between yourself and the source of the heat the colder it gets.  Simple.

 

 

But if I were a scientist studying the Sun I would find that Mother Nature has thrown me a curveball.

 

Stellar corona - Wikipedia

 

The coronal heating problem in solar physics relates to the question of why the temperature of the Sun's corona [atmosphere] is millions of kelvins versus the thousands of kelvins of the surface.

 

The temperature of the surface of the Sun is 5,726 degrees C, but its atmosphere is just under a 1,000,000 degrees C.  This is a 200-fold increase in temperature.  According to the simplest explanation, using the laws of thermodynamics, the further away from the source of greatest heat that you get the colder it should get.

 

The source of greatest heat in the Sun is it's core, which is calculated to be 15,000,000 degrees C.  Inside the Sun, the further we get away from the core the more temperature drops until, at its surface, it's under 6,000 degrees C.  But then, when we move even further away from the core the temperature suddenly jumps 200-fold to 1,000,000 degrees C.

 

Something is clearly wrong here.

 

The simplest explanation, using thermodynamics, seems to contradict the evidence.  Therefore, as a scientist, what am I to do?  Bring the evidence into alignment with my simple thermodynamic expectation or concede that the simplest explanation is of no help in solving this problem?

 

What should I do, Pantheory?

 

Should I go with my personal preference for simplicity or should I yield to the evidence?