The Universe Was Never a Singularity

[little_monkey]

Reading the OP link only proved this author had nothing more than an algebraic understanding of physics and cosmology.

Thanks for the compliment... though I could teach you QFTCS, but that's besides the point. LOL.

---

Often theists have made the argument that the universe comes from a singularity (BBT) and claim that only God could have created that singularity. I made my arguments here that the universe was never a singularity: http://soi.blogspot.com/

Any comments?

Obviously it was never a singularity, lol. The more appropriate question is - was it empty, and if so, do the properties of the universe indeed cause matter to self-create?

It's an interesting question. But I doubt that science can answer it. So far, none of the models that have been proposed - cyclic universes, multiverses, with or without the Anthropic Principle -- give satisfactory answers. And we don't know if such a theory as quantum gravity will ever be developped. Furthermore, investigating at Planck level is just beyond our dreams, which means we have to do with what we've got, GR and QM.

[Aractus]

Not quite true. GR and QM can both be improved upon. There's no reason to limit our understanding by the bounds of those theories.

[little_monkey]

Not quite true. GR and QM can both be improved upon. There's no reason to limit our understanding by the bounds of those theories.

Of course, no one said we are bound to any theory. But so far, besides GR and QM, there isn't anything new promising. String Theory hasn't delivered, neither QLG nor Twistor Theory. SuSy and extra dimensions has been ruled out so far.

[Aractus]

See this example of the failings of the double-slit quantum-erasure experiment on my blog, where I point out one very big problem with the present theory.

[little_monkey]

See this example of the failings of the double-slit quantum-erasure experiment on my blog, where I point out one very big problem with the present theory.

This is a bit off topic, but will give it a go. I went to your link. Though I will confess I didn't really go over the experiment outlined, I did read some flaws in your description:

1)"basically once an entangled pair is created they are not only identical in every way to each other, but what happens to one affects the other"

An entangled pair is one in which if one property is known for one particle, you automatically know that property for the second particle. For example, If we know that one particle has spin "up", then we know the other has spin "down". We know it because the system was prepared in that way.

2) "but what happens to one affects the other; even in the future or the past, and even at any distance apart "

No, that's wrong. The two entangled particles will stay in whatever quantum state they were prepared, as long as there were no inteference, meaning no interaction took place between the entangled pair with other particles.

3) "However, for simplicity they can literally be thought of as being the exact same particle occupying two places in space-time."

Again, that's wrong. We are talking about two particles, never one particle. Incompatible observables, such as position and momentum, which are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles, applies to one particle, not to two particles. It's a mistake many people do.

Now, I haven't looked at the experiment. Maybe one day if I have time, I might. But right now, I have other cats to skin.

[Neo-Scholastic]

See this example of the failings of the double-slit quantum-erasure experiment on my blog, where I point out one very big problem with the present theory.

Very interesting. So in short QM is just another map and not the landscape?

[Aractus]

Again, that's wrong. We are talking about two particles, never one particle. Incompatible observables, such as position and momentum, which are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles, applies to one particle, not to two particles. It's a mistake many people do.

It doesn't matter because for the results I'm interested in you can obtain all the information you need with only one particle and no entanglement.

[little_monkey]

Again, that's wrong. We are talking about two particles, never one particle. Incompatible observables, such as position and momentum, which are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles, applies to one particle, not to two particles. It's a mistake many people do.

It doesn't matter because for the results I'm interested in you can obtain all the information you need with only one particle and no entanglement.

Then you need to look at a different experiment since the one in the link you gave me is about entanglement, which means a pair of particles.

If you want to know more about the underlying mathematics for the two-slit experiment and the concept of entanglement, see http://soi.blogspot.com/2011/02/two-slit...iment.html

[Aractus]

It helps if you read my page to the end before you comment. I am criticizing the interpretation of the results of the delayed choice quantum erasure double slit experiment. The authors claimed that the results prove that the "which way" information is "erased" in-line with the theory of Quantum Mechanics and the theory on partial-wave duality. I am exposing the flaw in the results. The flaw is that the signal photon merely tells you whether or not the idler photon produces an interference pattern and thus the results are meaningless. The fact is that the which-way information is present and never erased with the idler photon, thus you do not need to consider the signal photon at all. The idler photon has two different paths that are split and recombined for each slit. As an interference pattern is observed when doing this, it is therefore correct that if you had the use of a precise enough stopwatch and you timed the time it takes the photon to complete its journey you obtain the which way information - completely passively - without disrupting the interference pattern. No entanglement, no complications.

The theory on wave-partial duality is totally wrong, FYI.

[Phish]

Often theists have made the argument that the universe comes from a singularity (BBT) and claim that only God could have created that singularity. I made my arguments here that the universe was never a singularity: http://soi.blogspot.com/

Any comments?

E=mc^2