RE: Kalam argument under attack
February 9, 2015 at 3:22 pm
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2015 at 3:59 pm by Alex K.)
I have a big problem with this. If there is anything like inflation occurring (and we know that *something* like it has to come in because of the horizon and flatness problems), the usual classical singularity is not present anyways. We know that the flrw equations with just radiation, matter and cosmological constant can't be valid all the way back to near their singularity because of the flatness and horizon problems for which inflation was invented in the first place. I find it worrisome that the linked paper does not address these issues at all.
So I don't see whether the work mentioned here is applicable to the real world. We already knew that the naive "beginning" which one gets from a straight use of the friedman equations, is not there. WLC was using deprecated physics from 50 years ago in the first place.
There is the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem, but it does *not* say that there is a beginning before inflation. It says that necessarily something beyond classical field theory is needed to describe what comes before.
http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/ho...sents.html
Btw, the CMB simply is leftover heat radiation, it is always present in a universe that was once hot. Getting the details of the CMB right is the hard part.
I think infinitely old here don't mean what you think it means, with stars existing etc. In this model we were still in a superhot state 13.7 billion years ago, the nuclei and atoms were formed then, and the universe subsequently cools - this picture can't change, it is too well supported from observations. The question is what happens with this trillion degree soup if you go even further back. Does it go singularity or not.
So I don't see whether the work mentioned here is applicable to the real world. We already knew that the naive "beginning" which one gets from a straight use of the friedman equations, is not there. WLC was using deprecated physics from 50 years ago in the first place.
There is the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem, but it does *not* say that there is a beginning before inflation. It says that necessarily something beyond classical field theory is needed to describe what comes before.
http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/ho...sents.html
Btw, the CMB simply is leftover heat radiation, it is always present in a universe that was once hot. Getting the details of the CMB right is the hard part.
(February 9, 2015 at 3:04 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'd also like to know how this hypothesis accounts for observed differences in metallicity in different aged populations of stars. e.g. If the age of the observed universe is infinite, we should expect to find few (or no) metal-poor stars. Furthermore, current BBT explains the proportions of elements found in the universe (dominated by hydrogen and helium and a lesser amount of lithium synthesized during the BB, with heavier elements synthesized from stellar fusion and gravitational collapse).
I would expect that we'd find a hell of a lot more heavy elements in an infinitely old universe.
I think infinitely old here don't mean what you think it means, with stars existing etc. In this model we were still in a superhot state 13.7 billion years ago, the nuclei and atoms were formed then, and the universe subsequently cools - this picture can't change, it is too well supported from observations. The question is what happens with this trillion degree soup if you go even further back. Does it go singularity or not.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
