Quantum equations suggest the big bang never happened

[PeterDonis]

the Big Bang, plus eternal inflation, is actually very close to steady-state cosmology (not static cosmology, note).

I don't think so, except in the trivial sense that the universe is eternal in both cosmologies. The steady-state cosmology involves a very different detailed description of the dynamics of the universe, compared to Big Bang + eternal inflation.

 

[magneticnorth]

Do you have a reference for the last statement? I'm not aware of anyone citing the Casimir effect in any theoretical discussion about the quantum fluctuation hypothesis for the origin of the universe.

Yes , it is an article from Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/ If I have misinterpreted this , please specify .

 

[PeterDonis]

it is an article from Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/

I don't see anything here about the universe originating in a quantum fluctuation; it's just a discussion of the Casimir effect and the issue with the vacuum energy calculation. Also, there's nothing here about particles being detected; the experiments just measure the attractive force between the "mirrors".

(I also don't like the use of the word "mirrors" in the article; the Casimir effect is not limited to mirrors. I've been dissatisfied with Scientific American for some time now because of things like this; I'm not sure if it's the scientists taking liberties because it's not a peer-reviewed journal, or the editors just not catching misstatements, but either way it's disturbing.)

 

[Ken G]

I don't think so, except in the trivial sense that the universe is eternal in both cosmologies. The steady-state cosmology involves a very different detailed description of the dynamics of the universe, compared to Big Bang + eternal inflation.

Different in detail, yes, but the overall spirit of the later versions of the steady-state cosmology is that it could exhibit oscillations that could mimic transitions from deceleration to acceleration, and associated oscillations in matter creation could create the illusion of finite-age universes being created. So you could have periods when matter is injected, followed by periods when the matter injection is turned off, and it all plays out against a secular exponential expansion. So that could sound a lot like eternal inflation, though the details certainly do differ a lot-- the steady state model does not trace back even to a recombination epoch. So I probably should not say "very close to" in terms of the details, only in terms of the overall philosophy of an eternal universe that shows locally transient behaviors that distinguish that place and time from the overall evolution of the universe as a whole, and look like origins of "bubble" universes as Hoyle called them.

The relevance to the Das paper is only that the concept of bubble universes is much more like eternal inflation than like what Das is saying, because Das only needs one of these "bubbles" and still gets that it exists eternally. Of course, if one simply regards a Das universe as a single "bubble" out of many, then again one can return to a picture much like Hoyle's, except for things like the rejection of an epoch of recombination or other such completely different states of the universe. The main distinction in kind between these models, however, is something that is not at all well constrained in any of these theories-- what is the meaning of time when it is not something corresponding to the period when we actually do have observations of the universe.

 

[magneticnorth]

I don't see anything here about the universe originating in a quantum fluctuation; it's just a discussion of the Casimir effect and the issue with the vacuum energy calculation. Also, there's nothing here about particles being detected; the experiments just measure the attractive force between the "mirrors".

(I also don't like the use of the word "mirrors" in the article; the Casimir effect is not limited to mirrors. I've been dissatisfied with Scientific American for some time now because of things like this; I'm not sure if it's the scientists taking liberties because it's not a peer-reviewed journal, or the editors just not catching misstatements, but either way it's disturbing.)

Thank you for that clarification .

 

[Quds Akbar]

But keep in mind that inflation (which takes over after the Big Bang) is completely based on Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Ken G]

The characterization of inflation as occurring "after" the Big Bang is a big part of the problem with the whole idea that "the Big Bang never happened." The Big Bang is not the title of an event that originated the universe. Indeed, no such event is ever included in any Big Bang models other than highly speculative ones like brane collisions and such, and no respectable scientist could ever claim that we have incontrovertible evidence that the universe originated in some kind of creation event, nor that it existed forever, nor even that the concept of time we apply in the here and now had any meaning prior to a given stage of our history. Imagining that the "Big Bang" refers to an instant of creation, perhaps in a singular point in space, is an incorrect characterization that dominates popular media. In astrophysics, the Big Bang is a model of the history of the universe that obeys two rules: it is governed by general relativity under an assumption of spatial homogeneity, and its free parameters are fit to match observations throughout the accessible timeline of our universe. As such, the Big Bang model plays out after inflation, not before, although some may include inflation as part of it-- while others who view inflation as more speculative may choose to omit that aspect of the overall Big Bang model. Most educators and textbooks include it in some way, but with significant caveats.

The salient features of the scientifically demonstrated aspects of "the Big Bang" are that the universe has evolved substantially over a period of 13.8 billion years, during which time it went from a vastly high energy density to the situation we find today, passing through stages of nucleosynthesis, recombination, galaxy formation, and stellar nucleosynthesis. When using the language about our cosmological models properly, it is clear that nothing in the Das paper suggests "the Big Bang never happened."

 

[Ghost117]

As such, the Big Bang model plays out after inflation, not before, although some may include inflation as part of it--

Can you please clarify this statement in light of this simplification diagram that generally places the "big bang" prior to "inflation"?

You say that "In astrophysics, the Big Bang is a model of the history of the universe that obeys two rules: it is governed by general relativity under an assumption of spatial homogeneity, and its free parameters are fit to match observations throughout the accessible timeline of our universe." but how does this statement justify placing the big bang after inflation?

 

[Ken G]

The picture you are showing, that includes t=0, is just pop science. What "the Big Bang" means in real science can be found in quotes like this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the earliest known periods of the universe.[1][2][3] It states that the Universe was in a very high density state and then expanded.[4] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid there is a singularity."
Note the actual theory is about expansion, and one only gets a singularity if one extrapolates the idea "beyond where it is valid," as pop sci inevitably does. So unfortunately, we see that the term "Big Bang" is used in two completely different ways-- the pop sci meaning of some kind of "creation event", and the way professional scientists use the term in real astronomy applications. In the latter, and in scientifically responsible astronomy education, the term is used to describe an evolutionary model that tells a story of expansion of the universe, whose phases have been well checked against observations, the way science does. But this model also has a strange element, which some regard as its greatest flaw and others as its most exquisite feature-- as time goes backward, the theory leads to a question mark where the laws of physics as we know them break down. This happens prior to reaching a "singularity", so we already know that no model that includes such a singularity could ever be part of a self-consistent description of the universe that is based on well-tested laws of physics.

 

[bapowell]

He's saying that the placement of the "Big Bang" in the diagram is not covered by the Big Bang model itself, which is mum on the existence of any actual event that originated the universe. The early hot, dense phase that cosmologists identify with the nascent universe occurred after inflation as part of a process called "reheating". It is therefore common for people to refer to the "hot big bang" as occurring after inflation, but by this they don't mean literally the big bang singularity -- just the early hot phase of the universe relevant to observations.

 

[Ghost117]

Perfect, thank you gentlemen for this clarification.

 

[magneticnorth]

He's saying that the placement of the "Big Bang" in the diagram is not covered by the Big Bang model itself, which is mum on the existence of any actual event that originated the universe. The early hot, dense phase that cosmologists identify with the nascent universe occurred after inflation as part of a process called "reheating". It is therefore common for people to refer to the "hot big bang" as occurring after inflation, but by this they don't mean literally the big bang singularity -- just the early hot phase of the universe relevant to observations.

The Big Bang is therefore just a conceptual visualization , for an event that would start the inflation of space time .Time however must be figured in with all postulations regarding inflation .

 

[bapowell]

The Big Bang is therefore just a conceptual visualization , for an event that would start the inflation of space time .Time however must be figured in with all postulations regarding inflation .

No, I'm saying that the "hot big bang" is identified with the *end* of inflation, known as reheating.

 

[Ken G]

The Big Bang is therefore just a conceptual visualization , for an event that would start the inflation of space time .Time however must be figured in with all postulations regarding inflation .

That would be the pop-sci meaning of "Big Bang," but scientists already view that meaning as problematical, and prefer to use the term as the label for the well-tested theory of expansion, which bapowell is calling the "hot big bang" model. It's truly unfortunate that this term traces back to a kind of joke by Hoyle, this has allowed the term to be used in highly imprecise ways because it is such a pictorial phrase in the first place. Basically, the model says something very bizarre and unknown must have happened as we extrapolate back toward t=0, but no part of the scientific evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe, often called "the pillars of the Big Bang" (taking the hot big bang model meaning), have anything to do with a creation event. Instead, we have a 13.8 billion year timeline that makes sense. It is significant that the timeline that makes sense against observations is a finite timeline, but "what happened at the t=0 mark" in that timeline is simply not on the timeline, nor is how much longer that timeline could be extended if we ever actually have an observation that motivates us to do so. As of yet, we have no such motivation-- and no such motivation is provided by a speculative theory. The purpose of speculative theories is to motivate new observations, and help interpret them, not to create headlines that only play off on a widespread misunderstanding about the meanings of awkwardly pictorial scientific terms.

 

[magneticnorth]

That would be the pop-sci meaning of "Big Bang," but scientists already view that meaning as problematical, and prefer to use the term as the label for the well-tested theory of expansion, which bapowell is calling the "hot big bang" model. It's truly unfortunate that this term traces back to a kind of joke by Hoyle, this has allowed the term to be used in highly imprecise ways because it is such a pictorial phrase in the first place. Basically, the model says something very bizarre and unknown must have happened as we extrapolate back toward t=0, but no part of the scientific evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe, often called "the pillars of the Big Bang" (taking the hot big bang model meaning), have anything to do with a creation event. Instead, we have a 13.8 billion year timeline that makes sense. It is significant that the timeline that makes sense against observations is a finite timeline, but "what happened at the t=0 mark" in that timeline is simply not on the timeline, nor is how much longer that timeline could be extended if we ever actually have an observation that motivates us to do so. As of yet, we have no such motivation-- and no such motivation is provided by a speculative theory. The purpose of speculative theories is to motivate new observations, and help interpret them, not to create headlines that only play off on a widespread misunderstanding about the meanings of awkwardly pictorial scientific terms.

I agree , nothing is known beyond the point at which we can extrapolate and trace back to . The term itself assumes an explosion in purely visual terms . When an idea like that is presented to the general public , you can not expect anyone to understand or visualize "something very bizarre and unknown " , as the Big Bang has been presented as an explosion , originating from a Singularity . Rightly or wrongly that is the perception , and that is what is depicted in elementary Science books . Only when one looks deeper into the subject , they will quickly realize that no one knows what preceded or caused the inflation , or atleast , that which can be reasonably postulated to date .

 

[bapowell]

I agree , nothing is known beyond the point at which we can extrapolate and trace back to . The term itself assumes an explosion in purely visual terms . When an idea like that is presented to the general public , you can not expect anyone to understand or visualize "something very bizarre and unknown " , as the Big Bang has been presented as an explosion , originating from a Singularity . Rightly or wrongly that is the perception , and that is what is depicted in elementary Science books . Only when one looks deeper into the subject , they will quickly realize that no one knows what preceded or caused the inflation , or atleast , that which can be reasonably postulated to date .

Well, we have a date for when the expansion of the observable universe began, around 13.8 bya. As for the misconceptions about the big bang, yes, sadly explosions and singularities are still woefully common in the public treatment. But, hey, that's what PF is for!

 

[Science2Dmax]

The fact of the matter remains that even though the Big Bang is widely accepted And supported y mainstream science, we shouldn't question those who go against it and keep an open mind. Remember the Renaissance, Galileo underwent extreme scrutiny from the public eye. No genius is truly happy in their lifetime, but their legacy, is remembered by history. The fact of the matter remains that there are actually several other opinions in the scientific community on how the universe started or if it ever did at all

 

[phinds]

The fact of the matter remains that even though the Big Bang is widely accepted And supported y mainstream science, we shouldn't question those who go against it and keep an open mind. Remember the Renaissance, Galileo underwent extreme scrutiny from the public eye. No genius is truly happy in their lifetime, but their legacy, is remembered by history. The fact of the matter remains that there are actually several other opinions in the scientific community on how the universe started or if it ever did at all

Yes, if someone presents a verifiable alternate theory we should pay attention. So far there haven't been any. The "look what happened in history" argument is usually bogus. "Questioning those who go against it" should not be equated with "listen to kooks".

 

[bapowell]

Yes, we must always be receptive to criticism because scientific knowledge is necessarily incomplete and imperfect. But that does not equate to accepting any and all proposals equally, and the "lone genius" story is effectively irrelevant. Many a crank cite Galileo and Einstein and other pioneers whose ideas agitated the mainstream in their time; however, paradigm shifts of that magnitude are very rare. If they make empirical claims, let's test them; if not, let's remain at best agnostic.

In any enterprise with many individuals working to evolve the field, there are inevitably differences in opinion. But, as science progresses and we converge on an ever tighter corroboration of hypotheses, these differences in opinion will diminish. We know this, because science works.

 

[Ken G]

The takeaway messages from all this is that science is constantly self-correcting when it has new information it needs to fit into its understanding (but these new developments do not actually represent much in the way of new information), and that "the Big Bang" is not a model of some origin event, it is an evolution story that is tested at every step that is part of the model.

The reason a headline like "The Big Bang Never Happened" makes little sense is that it is completely nonresponsive to both of those points, instead it reflects an almost complete misunderstanding of both science, and what the the Big Bang scientific model actually is. So no one with any regard for science needs to enter into an argument about whether or not "the Big Bang really happened", what they need is to explain what science actually is, and what the well-tested Big Bang model actually is. That should include explaining to pop sci articles, and even textbooks if necessary, that no part of the well-tested Big Bang model says that the universe began in a singularity, it says that the laws of physics as we know them, and the observations we have to constrain the history of the universe, are presently completely moot about what happened 13.8 billion years ago that got that evolutionary ball rolling. Also, what the model says about what happened after that gets progressively more uncertain the closer the model gets to the start of its own timeline. A little hard to get into a headline, I realize.

 

[magneticnorth]

The takeaway messages from all this is that science is constantly self-correcting when it has new information it needs to fit into its understanding (but these new developments do not actually represent much in the way of new information), and that "the Big Bang" is not a model of some origin event, it is an evolution story that is tested at every step that is part of the model.

The reason a headline like "The Big Bang Never Happened" makes little sense is that it is completely nonresponsive to both of those points, instead it reflects an almost complete misunderstanding of both science, and what the the Big Bang scientific model actually is. So no one with any regard for science needs to enter into an argument about whether or not "the Big Bang really happened", what they need is to explain what science actually is, and what the well-tested Big Bang model actually is. That should include explaining to pop sci articles, and even textbooks if necessary, that no part of the well-tested Big Bang model says that the universe began in a singularity, it says that the laws of physics as we know them, and the observations we have to constrain the history of the universe, are presently completely moot about what happened 13.8 billion years ago that got that evolutionary ball rolling. Also, what the model says about what happened after that gets progressively more uncertain the closer the model gets to the start of its own timeline. A little hard to get into a headline, I realize.

Indeed , in fact it has never been the headline .Almost every exposition of the Universe uses the term Big Bang , shows an explosion , even in the both Cosmos tv productions . The non-scientific public will always correlate the term Big Bang with an explosion . That is not the fault of the Physicists , because they never got full playing time , it was always the Astronomers that put forward the narrative . I would be willing to say that 90 % [ or more ] of the general public , have no idea of the issues discussed as they pertain to the expansion of the Universe and it's cause . That is , the known physics can only pertain to such a period looking backwards in time, to 3 Planck time segments after whatever initiated the inflation . Anything before that is simply not known .

 

[Ken G]

Yes, I think a very un-nuanced understanding of the "Big Bang" has been handed to the public, but it is because it was not thought that a sophisticated understanding of what science does would be necessary. The educators and pop-sci authors thought it would be all right to say that the universe started in a point, just to kind of amaze people and change their perspective from a universe that just stays the same. They didn't realize that if they said the universe started in a point, and someone came up with a different picture that was equally unconstrained by observations, it would lead creationists and climate change deniers to say, in effect, if they could be wrong about that then how do we know the universe isn't actually 10,000 years old.

 

[Chronos]

That might be true if you were preaching to a kindergarten class, but, I think the interested lay public would find that offensive.

 

[Ken G]

I do not know what you mean, my words would be quite hard for kindergartners, and the Glen Beck's of the world, to understand. The goal is to get them to see the nonsense in saying "well, if the Big Bang never happened, then we can't really believe anything the scientists are saying about the history of the universe, right?" That's just what those mentioned in the OP were saying, and it is because they have a kindergarten understanding of science.

 

[Wes Tausend]

I thought the concept of "singularity" came from Hawking, then was subsequently dismissed by him, rather than arising directly from pop-science.

My philosophical concern with a bang or inflation (however gentle) that has a proposed beginning, is that of Newtons 3rd law, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If we are to conserve this law everywhere, and if an action did not exist in perpetuity, where's the other half when the first "action" began? Or is the law already conveniently contained for introduction within the actions and forces we have today (I wonder)? Or perhaps, to save face, Newton's laws break down, as does Einstein's, in such a "too early" application.

In an eerie coincidence in early February (before this threads referred press release), I was trying to come up with a proper reference to help support an iffy statement I had made here regarding the early universe. A couple of days later it dawned on me that the elusive reference I sought should have been Newtons 3rd Law, but it was too late to possibly save my thread. A few days later yet, this present topic press release came out including such a reference to Newtons 3rd Law (I don't know much about the integrity of this source.)

Regarding Newtons 3rd Law, it seems to me that the total sum of actions, and total sum of reactions should preferably be identical for all time in perpetuity, throughout the universe. It seems the way to see this would therefore be to pit all established inertial actions against all resultant inertial actions, and we might even include gravity if the Equivalence principle (to inertial acceleration) is to hold (a+b=b+a). All these continuous actions, and counteractions, must in turn, be transmitted by electrostatic repulsion. Then the total forces involved in actions by both inertial mass and gravitational mass logically, and indefinately, would exactly equal the total force of repulsions at any given time, or in grand total altogether. In a way, gravity and electrostatics seem to naturally be conditionally united (albeit opposed but united), as we cannot technically acknowledge existence of one without the other.

The preceeding is not to argue the vastly different potential strengths of electrostatic forces vs gravity, but merely that they are at least observed to be matched in opposing equilibrium where ever mass makes near contact with other mass. As Feynman said, my hand does not pass through the table because electrostatic forces prevent it from doing so, in spite of all atoms being mostly open space. The same is true of my feet on the floor as I stand in gravity... or stand in Einsteins accelerating elevator in Equivalence to gravity. Of course an object (or heavenly body) in free-fall experiences no forces of either kind and does not count.

To conserve Newton's 3rd Law throughout all history, I think it might be possible to more fully apply Newtons 3rd Law, in that we generally observe inertial action to have an equal counterpart in electrostatic repulsion, quite representative of two presently known fundamental forces (if gravity is truly Equivalent). I'm thinking this perspective is now simply more self-evident rather than speculative, or I would not suggest it as food for thought, nor question it here. And it seems to me, to only work if there were no distinct beginning as the thread topic suggests.

And for the record, the forces would be measured in dynes... not joules... argh... as I mis-stated in my earlier thread. It is probably less harmful when I call my children by the wrong name. Perhaps I was vaguely thinking of how all work must be transferred and mixed them.

This is admittedly a different way to look at things. I hope it is not entirely invalid nor useless.

Wes
...

 

[magneticnorth]

I think , that Hawking's singularity was more in reference to Black Holes , but the term itself was used to express in the theory of a Big Bang the Bang came from an unimaginably small point that contained all the mass we see in the Universe before it expanded . Or the state of the Universe before Inflation . Again it was more of a conceptual notion rather than anything actually known .As to what occurred BEFORE 3 Planck segments of time AFTER inflation ? Your guess is as good as mine . I have no idea , nor does anyone else . I'm not a physicist , although I know of the Third Law , I would not know how to apply it or how it would relate to the presently observed Inflation and apparent acceleration of the galaxies .

 

[phinds]

... the term itself was used to express in the theory of a Big Bang the Bang came from an unimaginably small point that contained all the mass we see in the Universe before it expanded ..

This is COMPLETELY wrong. The term "singularity" means "the place where our model breaks down and we don't know what was going on". It has never, in the context of the big bang, meant a "point in space"

This "point in space" interpretation of "singularity" in reference to the big bang singularity is pop science woo woo.

 

[magneticnorth]

I know that . What I said is the term Singularity has been used to describe conditions preceding the Big Bang , neither of which obviously can be proven , but nonetheless BOTH terms have been used over the past decades in Astronomy and Cosmology . So , the term whether you believe it or not , whether it is real or not , has been used in that manner . In addition to references to Black Holes .
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae649.cfm. This is an example of what is generally dispersed information . And yes it's pop science and you knew that- WOO WOO . So too is the "singularity " hypothesized in Black Holes - physical laws break down there too .

 

[Ken G]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae649.cfm. This is an example of what is generally dispersed information .

Yes, it's a shame this is what percolates down to the masses. I really don't know what goes through the minds of scientists when they say, as that site does, "The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today." You won't find more obvious dogma in any religion. We cannot say that as scientists, it's not just religious dogma, it's something we have evidence of, because in fact we do not have any evidence of anything in that statement. Why is it so hard to just stick to what we actually do have evidence of, and then nobody gets confused about what is meant when we assert that "the Big Bang happened", based on said evidence, which of course has nothing to do with the creation of anything that no well-tested physical theory includes any way to create. When science becomes, "ah, but we think we have good reason to believe this stuff, though it's not exactly scientific evidence," it has forgotten itself.

 

[magneticnorth]

Too bad these distinctions are not expiated in pop science , after all, it is by far more wide read by the general public, yet it is a disservice when information is erroneous . I can attest to that ; since 1961 at the age of 12, I became interested in the stars , my dad being a ships captain pointed out the main navigational stars - [Loran was not even used by ships at the time ] . I went to the Library and happened upon a book which had pictures from the Hubble Telescope , but they were white background negatives , the caption read - most objects in this frame are galaxies - I was completely blown away as this was a galactic field I was looking at , that seemed to go on forever . This is what jump started my interest . There were the two competing Theories -Big Bang and Steady State , the Background Radiation was not yet measured by Penzias and Quasars had not yet been discovered . The red shift was known and explained as a result of [you guessed it ] a Big Bang . Physics have come an incredible way since then. Most of the familiar discussions and issues of the present , were completely unknown at the time to the general public . Astronomy was at the forefront making the observations and the Physicists were in the backroom doing the math , formulating the physical laws which would explain the observations. You would have had to have been a physicist or physics student to know of people like Bohr , Planck etc. Everyone knew of Einstein , but his was a different realm than the average astronomy student .

 

[phinds]

Too bad these distinctions are not expiated in pop science ...

Hm ... I don't really think the distinctions are sinful

 

[Ken G]

No one said anything about "sin", that is again a religious reference, much like saying that energy and mass was "created" in the "beginning". None of that has anything to do with the Big Bang model. So no, it's not a "sin" to say it does, but it sure is poor science.

 

[phinds]

No one said anything about "sin", that is again a religious reference, much like saying that energy and mass was "created" in the "beginning". None of that has anything to do with the Big Bang model. So no, it's not a "sin" to say it does, but it sure is poor science.

I see you missed my point. The word expiated is only normally associated with sin. I suspect he probably meant to say "explicated" which would have fit the sentence perfectly.

 

[Ken G]

Oops, I did read right over that, sorry!

 

[phinds]

Oops, I did read right over that, sorry!

I do that all the time. I've even read studies about how we all glide right over words sometimes, filling in or changing where similar words were intended and the intent is clear ... we read the intent, not the actual word.