(February 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(February 9, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Most of us are familiar the Kalam's cosmological argument and its flaws.

Could you define "Kalam's cosmological argument". Or, alternatively, "most", "us", and "are".

Google is your friend.

(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 model explain the CMB and redshifts of distant objects?

(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.

So where the hell is god going to hide now?!?

The universe needing a beginning was the last hidey-hole for magical sky wizards.

Jesus freaks will NOT be amused.

They can ignore evolution, they can ignore this.

They don't understand evolution... pretty sure they won't understand this.

(February 9, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming 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 model explain the CMB and redshifts of distant objects?

As far as I understand it, the model differs from our current understanding on the quantum level. So at the larger scales, there is no noticible difference between the two. CMB and the expansion of the universe would still occur.

---

Summary from the original paper.

Quote:In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE,
the second order Friedmann equation derived from the
QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These
terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally
in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of
these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological con-
stant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude
and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second
quantum correction term pushes back the time singu-
larity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.
While inhomogeneous or anisotropic perturbations are
not expected to significantly affect these results, it would
be useful to redo the current study with such small per-
turbations to rigorously confirm that this is indeed the
case. Also, as noted in the introduction, we assume it to
follow general relativity, whereas the Einstein equations
may themselves undergo quantum corrections, especially
at early epochs, further affecting predictions. Given the
robust set of starting assumptions, we expect our main
results to continue to hold even if and when a fully satis-
factory theory of quantum gravity is formulated. For the
cosmological constant problem at late times on the other
hand, quantum gravity effects are practically absent and
can be safely ignored. We hope to report on these and
related issues elsewhere

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf

I bolded for emphasis. This theory still predicts the correct amount of dark energy, but no beginning of the universe.

But how does it incorporate the CMB?

(February 9, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Faith No More Wrote: But how does it incorporate the CMB?

CMB is caused from the rapid expansion of the universe. I believe the rapid expansion still occurs in their model.

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.

(February 9, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Surgenator Wrote: CMB is caused from the rapid expansion of the universe. I believe the rapid expansion still occurs in their model.

Isn't the rapid expansion the result of the state of the universe after the big bang, though? If there was no singularity, why would there be a rapid expansion?

1. Everything that has always existed, except God, has a cause.
2. The universe has always existed.
3. Therefor the universe was made by Thor. Err, Allah. No wait...