Alexander Vilenkin, theoretical physicist: "What we are doing is somewhat strange in the sense that we find there is this mathematical structure that underlies the universe, and we are in the process of discovering this structure. This mathematics describes how the universe evolves, it also seems to describe how the universe came into being. So, it's very puzzling: does this mathematics have some independent existence of its own in some Platonic realm, or is it a mere description of the universe? It appears the development of physics points to the first possibility."
Does the cosmos have a reason?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
What Happened Before the Big Bang?
Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin does the math to show that the universe indeed had a starting pointBy now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, now a senior professor of mathematics at Long Island University, and Alan Guth, a professor of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must, in fact, have had a beginning.
Since that discovery, others in the field have countered with alternate theories describing other kinds of universes where the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, as it is called, would not apply. Vilenkin, a professor of physics and astronomy, and graduate student Audrey Mithani, G15, used mathematics to examine three potential logistical loopholes in the 2003 theorem, strengthening their original premise that the universe did, in fact, begin
Q: Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?
Alexander Vilenkin: I don’t think it proves anything one way or another.I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?
For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.
In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.
As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.
I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.
What Happened Before the Big Bang?
An exploration with a mathematician about what precedes the Big Bang
now.tufts.edu
Yakuda
Verified User
Yes
Read what I put in bold. perpetual motion has a balance point between expanding details ending in contracting results combined to the universe positions sustaining thermodynamic results occupying time specifically positioned spaced universally apart now.
Atoms combined into molecular characteristics the nucleus of the characteristics has the the combined nuclei of the atoms holding its characteristic form be it gaseous, liquid, mineral.
Now as molecules contract into larger forms universal positions appear out of what humans said nothing existed yet the building blocks were present all the time.
Time is a comparison to things in series parallel relativity. space occupied by objects has a separate meaning than space between subject matter of how, why, what, where, when, which is which place, thing, person
so now comes means, methods, origins, duration, departure, geographical location, universal, galactic, solar system, planetary, ancestral, sequence of events, passeed, present, arriving.
For there to be a beginning of each results, details had to come together and balancing had to be reached for cycles to change everything left like never before, again.
that is what evolvving does without any theories something else did or does what comes next, naturally timed as displaced differently here.
Transitions without seeing the transformation inside one's self. personal point of view. sole consciousness isn't a soul's conscience crated by trying to co-exist cradle to grave each generation gap of one's own ever changing ancestral position arriving a fertilized cell to departing the corpse of one sole lived so far.
mankind invented relative time comparing the whole against itself trying to discover why things turnout different al the time same way every time.
Simple reason is the whole is equal to the total sum of all its parts evolving forward now. A species is all its ancestral lineages that have processed being alive one at a time, now.
theories and theologies distort how series parallel events do not exceed spontaneously here since origin simultaneously changing forms present until not anymore. Erosion does to inorganic results as decomposition does to ancestral ones The two processing systems work in series parallel time inverting matter with induced energies having bandwidths and wavelengths creating harmonics that allow balancing positions to bcome universal balancing details never same results twice now.
Humanity tries to disprove now is eternity, and it always has been.
I'm fascinated by people who think there needs to be a "meaning" to physical objects. What is the "meaning" of a giraffe.
I suspect, in your case, @Cypress, you gravitate to this sort of stuff because it makes you feel "intellectual" without having to worry about the "content" of your musings. I find these types of questions to be needlessly obtuse. That's probably why you like them. You can trot them out at dinner parties and everyone thinks your sooooo deeeeeep. When, in fact, you only ever quote other people and don't ever question the assumptions or integrate the stuff they talk about. You seem uniquely incapable of leveraging knowledge for anything. You seem to just like to quote famous people so others will think you smart.
That's kind of a sad way to be.
I suspect, in your case, @Cypress, you gravitate to this sort of stuff because it makes you feel "intellectual" without having to worry about the "content" of your musings. I find these types of questions to be needlessly obtuse. That's probably why you like them. You can trot them out at dinner parties and everyone thinks your sooooo deeeeeep. When, in fact, you only ever quote other people and don't ever question the assumptions or integrate the stuff they talk about. You seem uniquely incapable of leveraging knowledge for anything. You seem to just like to quote famous people so others will think you smart.
That's kind of a sad way to be.
So what's the reason?
The topic professor Vilenkin is discussing is mathematics.
Math is not a "physical object", something your second grade teacher should have taught you.
I am careful to ensure my selections at least address alternative explanations, since I hate dogma, claims of omniscience, and the certainty of the high school dropout.
If you don't like my threads, start your own, or spend your time on threads devoted to hyperpartisan political propaganda , innuendo, and gossip.
There is no math for what ha
Agree with you on this. Why doesn't Obtenebrator start his own threads on topics he wants to discuss with others?
So the title of the OP isn't about the "meaning" of the cosmos? Huh.
But it describes physical objects. Honestly, I'll ask you again: Do YOU believe that 1+1=2 had to be DEFINED by some intelligence beyond space and time?
You hate omniscience? Yet you CONSTANTLY act like you are omniscient and can read the thoughts of animals
Your threads are fun. You are clearly a sub-par intellect with a fragile ego who can't handle even a small question about anything you post about. All you know is what you are quoting.
It's honestly fun to see you dodge and weave and finally get so frustrated all you do is stamp your feet and yell.
He's a troll and an ankle biter. As evidenced by the sock puppet accounts he created.
I've never seen him start his own thread, and if he doesn't like my threads it's inconceivable why he spends so much time reading and responding to them.
He just admitted he is a troll. "It's honestly fun to see you dodge and weave"
Why should I have to? It's sufficient for me to call into question @Cypress's poorly reasoned assumptions, and on occasion correct him.
Actually he didn't.
That's not trolling. That's just a statement of fact.
YOU, on the other hand, seem to spend almost all of your time just bitching at everyone and telling them to "fuck off" (or worse)
You are a troll.
An ankle biter who has brought some of your less well-reasoned points down quite handily.
You would, of course be wrong. But I understand that that doesn't ever stop you from saying something.
Because at first I actually THOUGHT you were smarter. So I tried to get a conversation going. Now I just come on to correct your errors and call into question those assumptions you rely on but never question yourself.
It's also fun to see you get frustrated at being bested time and again.
troll
Says the troll.
C'mon. Stop this stupid game. You know you are a piece of human shit. No one on here is better than anyone else and you are actually worse.
So STFU.
Now you're just lying.
You have a long history of screaming at me in bolded ALL CAPS rants.
That's not someone having 'fun'.
That's somebody who is nursing a festering resentment and wallowing in petty grievance.
You nurse grudges really well. If only you were smarter.
This thread is about science and math.
You're the one that follows me around. I would barely notice you are here if you didn't relentlessly read my threads and compose responses to me.