RE: Origin of Matter
June 5, 2017 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2017 at 4:30 pm by Alex K.)
@LFC,
To get one thing out of the way, the first proponents of big bang cosmology encountered a strange consequence of their model: as you go back in time using the formulas of gravity, temperature at one point 14 billion years ago goes to infinity, and the size of the universe becomes zero. This was dubbed the initial singularity, and it is outdated but confusingly still parroted by popular science. This idea that the big bang simply was such a singularity is ruled out by observations. The inflation models I outlined above are different from that in that the size of everything does not shrink to zero in the past, and temperatures do not suddenly become infinitely high in the past. However, Borde Guth and Vilenkin proved an interesting theorem about the mathematics of such models: if you arbitrarily go back in time, while the universe as a whole does not shrink to zero, you will run into singularities, i.e. points in our past where the mathematics of coventional space and time breaks down. Think of it kind of like there being strange phenomena like black holes in our past. This existence of mathematical singularities in these models has been eaten up by apologists once they heard of them and turned into "science proves the universe must have been created" etc.
This is unjustified on several levels:
We know that classical (non-quantum) gravity is an incomplete theory and the theorem only applies to this since obviously we do not know what the correct theory of quantum gravity is
As BGV themselves say, the mere fact that there are singularities in the past of such models does no more tell us that this is where some kind of supernatural creation occured, than the existence of black holes today tells us that the universe has magically vanished into nothingness. I strongly paraphrase here because I don't have the quote handy.
Last but not least, there are alternatives to inflation to which the theorem does not apply.
And most importantly, the breakdown of ancurrent theory is NEVER a good.justification to conclude your favorite version of magick rather than keep looking for more complete theories. It has always failed in the past.
To get one thing out of the way, the first proponents of big bang cosmology encountered a strange consequence of their model: as you go back in time using the formulas of gravity, temperature at one point 14 billion years ago goes to infinity, and the size of the universe becomes zero. This was dubbed the initial singularity, and it is outdated but confusingly still parroted by popular science. This idea that the big bang simply was such a singularity is ruled out by observations. The inflation models I outlined above are different from that in that the size of everything does not shrink to zero in the past, and temperatures do not suddenly become infinitely high in the past. However, Borde Guth and Vilenkin proved an interesting theorem about the mathematics of such models: if you arbitrarily go back in time, while the universe as a whole does not shrink to zero, you will run into singularities, i.e. points in our past where the mathematics of coventional space and time breaks down. Think of it kind of like there being strange phenomena like black holes in our past. This existence of mathematical singularities in these models has been eaten up by apologists once they heard of them and turned into "science proves the universe must have been created" etc.
This is unjustified on several levels:
We know that classical (non-quantum) gravity is an incomplete theory and the theorem only applies to this since obviously we do not know what the correct theory of quantum gravity is
As BGV themselves say, the mere fact that there are singularities in the past of such models does no more tell us that this is where some kind of supernatural creation occured, than the existence of black holes today tells us that the universe has magically vanished into nothingness. I strongly paraphrase here because I don't have the quote handy.
Last but not least, there are alternatives to inflation to which the theorem does not apply.
And most importantly, the breakdown of ancurrent theory is NEVER a good.justification to conclude your favorite version of magick rather than keep looking for more complete theories. It has always failed in the past.
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
