Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:20 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kalam argument under attack
#21
RE: Kalam argument under attack
I'm also missing how this ties in with the current observation that the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing. Meaning, eventually, the universe will be cold, dark and diffuse.

Maybe "infinitely old" doesn't mean what we think it means in this context.
Reply
#22
RE: Kalam argument under attack
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.

(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

Reply
#23
RE: Kalam argument under attack
(February 9, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Alex K Wrote: 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

The hypothesis is still in its infancy. The physics community (which you are a part of) will give them hell until the model is invalidated or the community runs out of big stones to throw at them.
Reply
#24
RE: Kalam argument under attack
(February 9, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Oversimplified version: The authors applied a quantum mechanics corrections to general relativity. This ellimanted the Big Bang as a infinitely small point with all the mass and energy in it. It produced a finite size that is infinity old i.e. the universe had no beginning.

How does this comport with observed expansion?

edit: Jesus H Christ, you got there first. This is what I get for sleeping on the job.

Reply
#25
RE: Kalam argument under attack
(February 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(February 9, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Oversimplified version: The authors applied a quantum mechanics corrections to general relativity. This ellimanted the Big Bang as a infinitely small point with all the mass and energy in it. It produced a finite size that is infinity old i.e. the universe had no beginning.

How does this comport with observed expansion?

edit: Jesus H Christ, you got there first. This is what I get for sleeping on the job.

To be frank, I don't know. You have reached the limit of my knowledge on big bang cosmology.
Reply
#26
RE: Kalam argument under attack
Alex, you've already answered the question I had about observed expansion and infinity, but my brain is stubborn. Even if we go further back with the trillion degree soup, doesn't infinity pose a problem for anything eventually happening/changing, singularity or not? I just can't visualize infinity in any other way.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply
#27
RE: Kalam argument under attack
It's a scientific conspiracy constructed solely to silence the awesome Kalam argument.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#28
RE: Kalam argument under attack
It's spelled Kalam "argument", with "s. Tongue

(February 9, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Exian Wrote: Alex, you've already answered the question I had about observed expansion and infinity, but my brain is stubborn. Even if we go further back with the trillion degree soup, doesn't infinity pose a problem for anything eventually happening/changing, singularity or not? I just can't visualize infinity in any other way.

Yeah, you're not alone. I'm speculating here, but I suppose it could look like it shrinks slower and slower going backwards in time such that it never goes to zero size. The question "why did the universe wait infinite time to spew us out *now*" is tempting and confusing, but migh be a tautology. Still, even extremely unlikely quantum fluctuations would occur in such an infinite timeline, which would lead to deviations. Very confusing and counterintuitive.
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

Reply
#29
RE: Kalam argument under attack
I think it's a safe bet that any metaphysical argument one can locate in writings more than a 1,000 years old is probably wrong.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#30
RE: Kalam argument under attack
God damn quantum fluctuations.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dyson Sphere under construction? Mr Greene 64 12418 October 14, 2017 at 7:44 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause GriffinHunter 69 10080 March 19, 2015 at 5:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Olympus sized vulcano found under the pacific. Anomalocaris 5 3110 September 11, 2013 at 1:34 am
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)