Big Bang Cosmology

Big Bang? We are now told that there was a Big Melt, not a Big Bang

Spread the love
possible evidence for dark energy/NASA, CXC, SAO,A.Vikhlinin et al.

By way of bypassing the Big Bang, from Anu Padmanabhan at Nautilus:

The key new ingredient we have introduced, which helps to bypass this technical difficulty, is the concept of cosmic information. The idea that information should play a key role in the description of physics has gained considerable support in recent times. This notion arises in several contexts when one attempts to combine the principles of quantum theory and gravity like, for example, in the study of quantum black holes. There is also the intriguing notion of holography in some of these models, which suggests that the information content in a bulk region can be related to the information content on its boundary. But, unfortunately, the mathematical description of the information turns out to be different in different contexts, and we still have not found a unifying principle applicable in all cases. Therefore, in order to apply the notion of information to the whole universe, we have to first come up with a definition for it that is physically appropriate.

The definition of cosmic information that we used can be best illustrated with an analogy. When a piece of ice melts to form water, a transition from solid to liquid phase takes place. The actual dynamics of the phase transition can be very complex but the total number of atoms in the ice will be the same as the total number of atoms in water. This number represents the number of degrees of freedom in the system, which does not change during the phase transition. Similarly, the phase transition that led to the birth of the universe can be described by a number that links the degrees of freedom in the pre-geometric phase with those of the classical spacetime. Using this number, which we call “CosmIn,” we can connect the two phases of the universe, bypassing the complications of a complete quantum gravity model. More.

Does it matter that we haven’t found any dark matter, let alone dark energy? Maybe it is now “anti-science” to wonder.  Here is anther anti-science thought: Why does so much anti-Big Bang material sound like this?

See also: Top lines of evidence supporting intelligent design: #1 The Big Bang. The fact that the Big Bang supports design is the principle reason it is unpopular. That explains both the pettifogging arguments against it and the weird cosmologies, destructive to science, now promoted in order to avoid it. But the biggest question today is whether evidence still matters the way it used to.

7 Replies to “Big Bang? We are now told that there was a Big Melt, not a Big Bang

  1. 1
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    But, unfortunately, the mathematical description of the information turns out to be different in different contexts, and we still have not found a unifying principle applicable in all cases. Therefore, in order to apply the notion of information to the whole universe, we have to first come up with a definition for it that is physically appropriate.

    The fundamental law of the universe is moral, not physical, so these researchers are looking in the wrong place.

    The fundamental quantity in the universe is information, and they have finally gotten around to that after trying and failing with everything else.

  2. 2
    FourFaces says:

    News:

    Does it matter that we haven’t found any dark matter, let alone dark energy?

    News, the same reasoning (the red shifting of light from distant galaxies) that gave us the Big Bang is also what gave us dark energy. Dark energy is needed to explain the alleged accelerated expansion of the universe. If there is no dark energy, there was no Big Bang either.

    One of the insurmountable problems of the accelerated expansion of the universe is that distant matter is calculated to be moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. This is crackpot territory right there, regardless of the excuses made by the die-hard fans of expansion.

    We, Christians, should not be emotionally tied to the Big Bang just because we believe it is needed to prove that the universe had a beginning. God does not need a Big Bang to create the universe. The universe does not have to begin as some weird singularity that does not make any logical sense.

  3. 3
    Nonlin.org says:

    If you have not seen this:
    https://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles-1.22970

    All current models of the universe resemble a wound-up toy. This forces physicists into all kind of unreasonable theories and when one fails they have to come up with a “patch” that is even worse.

  4. 4
    Pearlman says:

    SPIRAL CR hypothesis resolves as it predicts the CR w/o the missing dark matter. so a big bang and inflation just not the big bang

  5. 5
    FourFaces says:

    Nonlin.org @3,

    It’s epicycles all over again. It’s pathetic pseudoscience.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    The Big Melt. AGW at a cosmic scale then.

  7. 7
    J-Mac says:

    It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it does now.

    If the Big Bang hypothesis is right then the universe began in a state of zero entropy-highly organized universe of a size if tennis ball…

    How could this have been?

Leave a Reply