George Ellis argues: We can’t know if the universe had a beginning

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 6, 2022

Big Bang, Cosmology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Most people today believe in The Big Bang theory when it comes to the origins of the cosmos. Can we be certain that the universe had a beginning? The history of the universe involves various stages. At very early times, it went through an extraordinarily rapid period of accelerating expansion when it became hugely bigger in a very short time; this is called inflation. At the end of inflation, that expansion had caused all the matter and radiation to dilute to almost zero, but then the field that had caused inflation decayed into very hot matter and radiation that continued expanding, but at a slower rate; that was the start of what we call the Hot Big Bang Era. The physical processes that occurred during this era are well understood, and all cosmologists agree on what happened then.
What we do not know is what happened before inflation began. The universe may or may not have had a beginning in that pre-inflationary era. The singularity theorems that Stephen Hawking developed do not apply, because the required energy conditions are now known to not be satisfied at that pre-inflationary time. In any case, a theory of quantum gravity is expected to apply at early enough times, but we don’t know what that theory is. To sum up: we do not know if the universe had a start, but we do know there was a Hot Big Bang.

Well, if the universe did not have a start, it must always have existed. And that’s the dreaded territory of Hilbert’s Hotel and infinity apart from mathematics.

You may also wish to read: Yes, you can manipulate infinity in math. The hyperreals are bigger (and smaller) than your average number — and better! (Jonathan Bartlett)

Comments

Bornagain77 @3,
In the BGV theorem, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin show that, “Our argument shows that null and time- like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold,”
Thanks, I've never run across the In the BGV theorem. Currently, there seems to be multiple problems with the current and alternative cosmologies. This makes things interesting for nearly everyone except doctrinaire and ideologically poisoned academics and those people who think science has all the answers. I dislike theories with infinities baked into them--if one gets an infinity, it's most likely due to a divide-by-zero error. The big problem is that physics doesn't handle purported infinities or zero points very well, not to mention science fantasies such as the multiverse, which is logically equivalent to a cosmic turtle whose eggs are universes. Speaking of fantasies, here are some other wild theories: https://www.livescience.com/strange-theories-about-the-universe.html Left out of the list was the Many Worlds theory, the most egregious violation of parsimony I can think of. -QQuerius_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

CD at 23, And a rational person like you deciding to waste his time here. Tsk, tsk... I have a theory: You're a bit of a masochist. If that's not the case, I have some physics I'd like to tell you about...relatd_{November 8, 2022
November
11
Nov
8
08
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Relatd Like I said, I'm here for the entertainment, not to learn physics from you or BA77. That would truly be a waste of time........chuckdarwin_{November 8, 2022
November
11
Nov
8
08
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Ba77 at 20, But if your assignment here includes such things, well...relatd_{November 8, 2022
November
11
Nov
8
08
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

CD at 19, And you have a chance to avoid all this by going to a pro-evo site. Lots of praise for Darwin and/or Dawkins. Instead, you elected to stay here...relatd_{November 8, 2022
November
11
Nov
8
08
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

But alas ChuckyD, you referenced the fact that Penrose has a Nobel prize in order to imply that we should not question his empirically unsupported speculations about cyclical cosmology. Yet, as my posts made clear, we have ample reason to question his empirically unsupported speculations about cyclical cosmology. The only thing that is truly sad, i.e. truly 'party pooping', in the whole thing is that you, apparently, find joy in people being led into error by your misleading rhetoric rather than you rightly finding joy in people being led to a firmer grasp of the truth..
Luke 15:3-7 Then Jesus told them this parable: “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the pasture and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders, comes home, and calls together his friends and neighbors to tell them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost sheep!’ In the same way, I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous ones who do not need to repent.
bornagain77_{November 8, 2022
November
11
Nov
8
08
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

BA77 You are such a party pooper. I know that Penrose got his Nobel for prior work on black holes and GR. That really wasn’t the point of my post re Relatd. But then you are smart enough to know that, you simply have a compulsive need to rain on everyone else’s parade…….chuckdarwin_{November 8, 2022
November
11
Nov
8
08
2022
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Of related note:
No, Roger Penrose, We See No Evidence Of A ‘Universe Before The Big Bang’ Ethan Siegel - Oct 8, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=9aaa1027a0f3 Science Journal Reaffirms Universe Had a Beginning, a Key Argument in Meyer’s God Hypothesis Brian Miller – August 9, 2022 Excerpt: A key argument in Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis centers on the universe having a beginning. He argues that the beginning points to the cosmos resulting from the mind of a creator. Meyer’s case for the God Hypothesis includes discrediting the claim that cyclical cosmological models could avoid a beginning by his appealing to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem. His reasoning was recently reaffirmed by University of Buffalo physicists Will Kinney and Nina Stein in their analysis of Ijjas and Steinhardt’s (IS) cosmological model. They published their results in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. Correspondent Charlotte Hsu summarizes the research at Phys.org: “People proposed bouncing universes to make the universe infinite into the past, but what we show is that one of the newest types of these models doesn’t work,” says Kinney, Ph.D., professor of physics in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. “In this new type of model, which addresses problems with entropy, even if the universe has cycles, it still has to have a beginning.” Cyclical Cosmologies and the BGV Theorem Kinney and Stein applied the BGV theorem to the IS model, which I have previously critiqued. Anna Ijjas and Paul Steinhardt propose that the universe expanded, then contracted, and then bounced back into an expansion stage in a never-ending cycle. Each iteration grows vastly larger than the previous one, so the universe is on average always expanding. Kinney and Stein rigorously demonstrate that the BGV theorem mandates the IS model being “geodesically pastincomplete,” meaning that spacetime had an absolute beginning: “In this paper, we use the BGV theorem to demonstrate that growth in the scale factor inevitably means that the spacetime is geodesically past-incomplete. … This result is completely general: any bouncing spacetime which obeys the condition for entropy dissipation and the Null Energy Condition outside the bounce must be geodesically incomplete. This is consistent with the BGV theorem, which shows that any spacetime for which the average Hubble parameter is positive must be similarly geodesically incomplete. The IS cosmology satis?es this condition and therefore cannot be past eternal, independent of the details of the dynamics.” In the next stage of their research, Kinney and Stein will analyze Penrose’s conformal cyclical cosmology (CCC). As I have reported previously, the CCC model has been severely critiqued by cosmologists including Ethan Siegel for its lack of empirical support and its failed predications. In addition, it requires numerous fine-tuned parameters. By avoiding the evidence for design from a beginning, it requires equal levels of design in its construction. Kinney and Stein will likely show that even if it were true, it also requires a beginning. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/science-journal-reaffirms-universe-had-a-beginning-a-key-argument-in-meyers-god-hypothesis/ Cyclic cosmology and geodesic completeness William H. Kinney1 and Nina K. Stein1 - June 2022 Abstract We consider recently proposed bouncing cosmological models for which the Hubble parameter is periodic in time, but the scale factor grows from one cycle to the next as a mechanism for shedding entropy. Since the scale factor for a flat universe is equivalent to an overall conformal factor, it has been argued that this growth corresponds to a physically irrelevant rescaling, and such bouncing universes can be made perfectly cyclic, extending infinitely into the past and future. We show that any bouncing universe which uses growth of the scale factor to dissipate entropy must necessarily be geodesically past-incomplete, and therefore cannot be truly cyclic in time. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/06/011/pdf
Of related note: Roger Penrose himself, a staunch agnostic, used the supposedly forbidden word "Creator" when he talked of the extreme 1 in 10^10^123 fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe.
“This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.” Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989) “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).” – Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?
It is interesting that Roger Penrose, a staunch agnostic, would feel compelled to use the word “Creator”. I hold that Penrose, a staunch agnostic, simply would never use the word ‘Creator’ unless the extreme nature of the fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe, i.e. 1 in 10^10^123, compelled him to do so.
“An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” – Dr. Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110
Moreover, this extreme 1 in 10^10^123 fine-tuning for the initial entropy of the universe creates a fairly embarrassing theoretical problem, (i.e. Boltzmann brain), for atheistic naturalists when they try to explain, purely by chance, the origin of such extreme fine-tuning for entropy, As Dr. Bruce Gordon further commented, “we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science."
Bruce Gordon: Hawking’s irrational arguments – Washington Times – 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Moreover, advances in quantum information theory have now shown that "entropy is (not) a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
To state the obvious, this finding from quantum information theory of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality. For instance Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, (long before entropy was even defined as a fundamental scientific principle) that, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’…. Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’” Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics. https://darwinthenandnow.com/scientific-revolution/william-thompson-kevin/ Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.
bornagain77_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

"Roger Penrose believes in cyclical cosmology. He has a Nobel Prize.",,, Not that a Nobel Prize insures the truth of an idea, but Penrose's Nobel was not for his empirically unsupported speculations about cyclical cosmology but he was awarded the Nobel for his pioneering work on black holes. Of note:
Why Roger Penrose’s (conformal cyclical cosmology) Cosmological Theory Doesn’t Work - 2022 Excerpt: Penrose’s model requires several highly questionable assumptions. First, it must overcome the implications of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that proves that expanding universes must have an absolute beginning. To avoid this conclusion, Penrose must assume that the universe was infinitely large in the infinite past, which is philosophically problematic. Additional unproven assumptions include the following: All particle masses dropping to zero. Presence of a scalar field that becomes active at the right time to trigger crossover. Mass of the scalar field rapidly increases after crossover. Given the lack to supporting evidence and the ad hoc assumptions, CCC offers no serious challenge to the evidence that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, something, or more likely someone, outside of time and space must have created it. - Brian Miller, “Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection” at Evolution News (January 11, 2022) https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/why-roger-penroses-cosmological-theory-doesnt-work/
bornagain77_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Relatd/11 But I’m having such a good time here—guaranteed humor 24/7……….chuckdarwin_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Sir Giles/10 Good catch, thanks. A senior moment. It’s hard to keep all those OT patriarchs straight sometimes…..chuckdarwin_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Jerry/12 Love it…….chuckdarwin_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

CD: Roger Penrose believes in cyclical cosmology. He has a Nobel Prize. You have what, exactly??????? A misspelled tag???????
And an attitude problem. :) But seriously, there is nothing ruling out a cyclic cosmology. All we know is that we have no idea what existed or what happened at the first few microseconds of the Big Bang. I have heard arguments that thermodynamics would not allow this, but without knowing what happens at the exact moment of the Big Bang (Big Crunch) we just can’t say for sure. And may never be able to.Sir Giles_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

For ChuckDarwin https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bkEAAOSwKPNTzKKH/s-l500.jpgjerry_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

CD at 9, Hey. You should drop this site and post on pro-evolution sites. I mean, it make sense. You can avoid those annoying IDers and a good time would be had by all.relatd_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

CD@9, I think you mean Noah, not Moses.Sir Giles_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Relatd The dinosaurs roamed 6000 years ago. In his haste to embark, it wasn't until after The Flood completely covered the earth and he shook off his previous night's bender, that Moses realized, with horror, that he had left them behind..... Roger Penrose believes in cyclical cosmology. He has a Nobel Prize. You have what, exactly??????? A misspelled tag???????chuckdarwin_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

I was shocked by this statement: "The physical processes that occurred during this era are well understood, and all cosmologists agree on what happened then." At first, I assumed he was referring to what happened AFTER inflation, but the next paragraph makes it clear he meant the inflation process itself. Forgive my doubt (and possible ignorance), but I understood that the inflation hypothesis was still considered questionable by many, and that "all cosmologists" certainly do NOT accept the inflation paradigm. Indeed, I have read that "inflation" is hard to specify in a way that matches the data. Is George Ellis just blowing smoke or is he a poor writer and did not mean what the writing appears to say?Fasteddious_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Cyclic cosmology? They, meaning scientists in general, appear to be running out of ideas. In the days when dinosaurs roamed... I mean early illustrations of the universe showed a flattened sphere, which suggests, to me, a rapidly spinning ball. That's right. Even if the Big Bang involved no actual explosion - making it a really stupid name - then a sphere or something close, is its shape. Let's look at what we can observe. Planets orbit the sun. Our solar system orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy. We're near the outer edge. That suggests that the universe encloses all galaxies, so it is subject to the gravitational pull of all galaxies, so it's a flattened sphere.relatd_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Of semi-related note, Brain Miller just posted a refutation of Steinhardt's attempt to avoid a cosmic beginning.
To Avoid a Cosmic Beginning, Physicist Paul Steinhardt Goes to Extraordinary Lengths Brian Miller - November 7, 2022 Excerpt: Renouncing Inflationary Cosmology Steinhardt is one of the most interesting and influential figures in cosmology. He was one of the original architects of inflationary cosmology. He later rejected the theory for reasons he detailed in his Scientific American article “Pop Goes the Universe.” He argued that all the major predictions of the simplest and most tractable versions of inflationary theory have failed. And current versions are so contrived and flexible that they could fit nearly any data, so they have no real explanatory power:,,, The Basic Framework Steinhardt proposes that his cyclic model of cosmology better explains the structure of our universe and avoids many of the pitfalls of inflationary cosmology.,,, Multitude of Assumptions The cyclic cosmological model purportedly explains such features of our universe as the near uniformity of the cosmic background radiation and the lack of curvature of space as well as other models, but it can only do so by relying on numerous speculative assumptions. The entire framework is founded on string theory which many physicists are starting to seriously question (here, here).,,, The irony is that Steinhardt’s criticisms of inflationary cosmology likely apply with equal force to his own theory. No empirical evidence supports any of the theory’s essential components. The numerous ad hoc features of his model are likely flexible enough to explain any observed data with the right choice of fine-tuned parameters and initial conditions. And the only testable predictions of string theory, which forms the bedrock for the entire framework, have failed. Claims that cyclic cosmology offers a compelling explanation for the structure of our universe is considered by most cosmologists dubious at best. A Simpler Explanation The most obvious conclusion about our universe is that it was created by a transcendent mind who designed it for the purpose of supporting life. This hypothesis is further supported by the evidence for design we see in our planetary system and throughout life. Denying the conclusion of design has forced scientists to propose the most arcane and contrived theories filled with multiverses, mysterious fields, and other wild speculations. Such efforts by many scientists are perfectly reasonable given their materialist framework. But an honest evaluation of the evidence should at some point inspire them to question their philosophical assumptions. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/to-avoid-a-cosmic-beginning-physicist-paul-steinhardt-goes-to-extraordinary-lengths/
bornagain77_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

OT:
What Was the X Factor That Inspired the Rise of Modern Science? Stephen Meyer Responds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqj5qDM6CRM&list=PL7Wwl5TzliiHMdSiW-TQ4SoLmKzzzYW3E&index=4 Stephen Meyer Explains the First Judeo-Christian Idea That Inspired the Rise of Modern Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-5UVrBJEw&list=PL7Wwl5TzliiHMdSiW-TQ4SoLmKzzzYW3E&index=3 Stephen Meyer Reveals the Second Judeo-Christian Idea That Inspired the Rise of Modern Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kB7foAXp88&list=PL7Wwl5TzliiHMdSiW-TQ4SoLmKzzzYW3E&index=2 Stephen Meyer On The Third Judeo-Christian Idea That Inspired the Rise of Modern Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfHnpDRaDKI&list=PL7Wwl5TzliiHMdSiW-TQ4SoLmKzzzYW3E&index=1
bornagain77_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

It is important to note just how finely-tuned the flatness of the universe actually is,
"The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness." ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang
The failure of inflation theory to actually predict the finely-tuned flatness of the universe is NOT a minor failing for the theory. If it were not for the exceptional finely-tuned flatness of the universe, it would be all but impossible to apply mathematics to the universe, and therefore science itself would be all but impossible for us. i.e. "We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense."
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Simply put, without some remarkable degree of exceptional, and stable, flatness for the universe, (as well as exceptional stability for all the other constants), Euclidean (3-Dimensional) geometry simply would not have been applicable to the universe at large, and this would make modern science, (particularly the mathematical analysis of the universe), for all practical purposes, all but impossible for humans to achieve. For instance, Sir Isaac Newton himself, the father of modern physics, was crucially dependent on Euclidean geometry in order for him to make his crucial breakthrough into modern physics.
“Isaac Newton explicitly referred to the authority of Euclidean geometry as a justification for the conservative form of the proofs in his Principia,,,” https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691412
Thus without some remarkable degree of 'flatness' to the universe, (where parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense), Newton would have never been able to make his crucial breakthrough into modern physics. Moreover, both Einstein and Eugene Wigner are on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe to be a 'miracle'
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf
And whereas physicists, (especially with their 'ad hoc' inflation model), have no realistic clue exactly why the universe is as flat as it is, Christian Theists have no problem whatsoever finding the answer for why the universe is as fact as it is.
Job 38:4-5 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
In fact, I also hold the exceptional 1 in 10^57 finely-tuned flatness of the universe, which enables the universe to be 'mathematically intelligible' to us in the first place, is rather strong empirical confirmation for the Judeo-Christian presupposition of 'intelligibility' of the universe. Which was an essential Judeo-Christian presupposition that lay behind the founding of modern science itself.
Stephen Meyer Explains the First Judeo-Christian Idea (Intelligibility) That Inspired the Rise of Modern Science - 2022 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-5UVrBJEw The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
Of supplemental note, and as to Ellis's claim that "a theory of quantum gravity is expected to apply at early enough times, but we don’t know what that theory is." George Ellis is referring to the fact that there is no mathematical 'theory of everything' that unifies gravity with quantum mechanics. Yet when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with a very plausible, empirically backed, reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. - Oct. 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/at-quanta-magazine-how-godels-proof-works/#comment-768973
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

As to,
"What we do not know is what happened before inflation began. The universe may or may not have had a beginning in that pre-inflationary era. The singularity theorems that Stephen Hawking developed do not apply, because the required energy conditions are now known to not be satisfied at that pre-inflationary time."
Does George Ellis not know the details of the BGV theorem? In the BGV theorem, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin show that, "Our argument shows that null and time- like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold,"
Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - 2003 Arvind Borde,1, 2 Alan H. Guth,1, 3 and Alexander Vilenkin1 Excerpt: we will construct a definition for H that depends only on the relative motion of the observer and test particles. In order to motivate what we do, we first consider the case of nonrelativistic velocities in Minkowski space. Suppose that the observer measures the velocities of the test particles as a function of the time t on his own clock.,,, IV. Discussion. Our argument shows that null and time- like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case). https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Inflation%20past0110012v2.pdf
And as Stephen Meyer explains, the BGV theorem for a beginning to the universe is much stronger than the singularity theorem that Stephen Hawking developed since the singularity theorem that Stephen Hawking developed was based on General Relativity whereas the BGV theorem is based on Special Relativity.
“There is another development in theoretical physics called the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. And its not based on General Relativity but its based on Special Relativity. And for that reason it is not effected by postulations about what gravity might or might not have been like in the first tiny smidgen of time after the beginning of the universe. And it is those speculations that prevented the Hawking, Penrose, Ellis, singularity theorem from absolutely proving a beginning point. Instead the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin, theorem proves a beginning to the universe on the basis of considerations from special relativity that have nothing to do with whether or not there were quantum fluctuations within the first tiny smidgen of time after the beginning of the universe, and whether gravity might have worked differently or not. Instead it is independent of all those kind of considerations and caveats that prevent us from saying that the Hawking, Penrose, Ellis, results are absolute proofs (for a beginning of the universe). Instead you have a very strong proof of a beginning from theoretical physics that is not dependent on these conditions.”,,, – Stephen Meyer Discusses the Big Bang, Einstein, Hawking, and More – video – 36:42 minute mark https://youtu.be/m_AeA4fMHhI?t=2202
Vilenken, in a presentation he delivered at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party, stated that “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." -? Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – as stated in a presentation he delivered at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party (Characterized as the 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') – January 2012? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
In his book, Vilenken was quite adamant as to what the BGV theorem 'proves',
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - 2007 - Pg. 176
Moreover, Ellis spoke of inflation theory with a degree of certainty that gave the impression that inflation theory is an empirically proven fact. Yet, inflation theory is not an empirically proven fact. Far from it. In fact, empirical evidence has now come forward that "has all but ruled out several popular models of inflation"
Blowing Up the Universe: BICEP3 Tightens the Bounds on Cosmic Inflation - Oct. 27, 2021 A new analysis of the South Pole-based telescope’s cosmic microwave background observations has all but ruled out several popular models of inflation. Excerpt: “Once-promising models of inflation are now ruled out,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, a BICEP3 principal investigator and a physicist at Stanford University and the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.,,, Those advances, Ahmed says, combined with data from prior experiments including BICEP2, Keck, WMAP and Planck, have allowed researchers to put the tightest bounds yet on what kinds of primordial gravitational waves could be out there – and hence the tightest bounds yet on models of cosmic inflation. The results rule out a number of inflation models, including some popular older models and some versions of newer ones motivated by string theory,,, https://scitechdaily.com/blowing-up-the-universe-bicep3-tightens-the-bounds-on-cosmic-inflation/
Contrary to what George Ellis implied, far from inflation being a empirically proven fact, inflation theory is an ad hoc theory that was postulated, (i.e. 'imagined out of thin air'), simply to ‘explain away’ the finely-tuned flatness of the universe, as well as the finely-tuned uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).
Critics Respond to Stephen Meyer’s New Book (Without Mentioning Him by Name) – Brian Miller – October 16, 2021 Excerpt: Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The flatness represents the lack in curvature of space that the theory of general relativity would normally predict. According to the standard Big Bang model, the lack of curvature required the mass density of the early universe to have been fine-tuned to greater than 1 part in 1060 (a 1 with 60 zeros behind it). Inflationary theory attempts to explain the flatness of space and the uniformity of the CMBR without the need for such extreme fine-tuning. It postulates a field permeating space that causes the universe to expand at a phenomenal rate. The earliest versions assumed that the expansion occurred a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang and only lasted for an exceedingly short period. This expansion purportedly flattened space and generated a CMBR with the observed uniformity. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/critics-respond-to-stephen-meyers-new-book-without-mentioning-him-by-name/
Moroever, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, stated that inflation theory does not even predict 'flatness' for the universe in the first place, i.e. "it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything."
Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. "So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing," he says. "I think it's telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it's going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn't." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00 Pop Goes The Universe - Scientific American - January 2017 - Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb Excerpt: “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.” “Two improbable criteria have to be satisfied for inflation to start. First, shortly after the big bang, there has to be a patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equations of general relativity; second, the patch of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflation energy can grow to dominate all other forms of energy. Several theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a patch with these characteristics just after the big bang suggest that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and well-maintained ski slopes in the middle of a desert.” “More important, if it were easy to find a patch emerging from the big bang that is flat and smooth enough to start inflation, then inflation would not be needed in the first place. Recall that the entire motivation for introducing it was to explain how the visible universe came to have these properties; if starting inflation requires those same properties, with the only difference being that a smaller patch of space is needed, that is hardly progress.” “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.” “We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation, whether it consists of an infinite multitude of patches with randomly distributed properties or a quantum mess. From our perspective, it makes no difference which description is correct. Either way, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.” https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf
bornagain77_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

If everything can be reduced to information for which there is a conservation law then it can be neither created nor destroyed. In that case, it must have existed forever. There was no beginning so no Creator required.Seversky_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

The laws of physics requires a beginning to all matter. The universe had a beginning, since the laws are absolute.BobRyan_{November 7, 2022
November
11
Nov
7
07
2022
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply