Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

[frigidweirdo]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, ding, et al,

OK, there is a misunderstanding here. "Almost" all mathematical equations that have a graphic form to some power, has the potential for more than one solution. Basing a concept as complex as space and time, on one single solution, → from one single evaluation is dangerous.

We know that "Quantum Mechanics" (QM) and "Relativity" (REL) [sometimes expressed as the general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT)] do not match-up. Yet each has been tested over and over again, and individually are both sound and valid. Yet, as we see it today, they are incompatible theories.

I understand that.

But the formation of space and time according to the laws of physics tells us that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

No they don't. You're just making that assumption, which is a silly assumption to be making.

(COMMENT)

In the universe we know today, scientist generally say: there are four (4) fundamental forces.

• The Weak Force (WF)
  
• The Strong Force (SF)
  
• The Electromagnetic Force (EMF)
  
• Gravity (G)

• 
• Big Bang
• David Darling

The QM describes the first three (WF, SF, EMF). And REL generally describes G (the shape of space-time). So some might say that the theories (QM and REL) are so different that they cannot be unified [The Grand Unification Theory (GUT) or the Theory of Everything (ToE)].

Now, just as Sir Issac Newton needed to invent "calculas" to explain several aspects of the motion of planets; there may be a need to further invent another form of mathematics (beyond Newtonian Math) that will help explain the solutions that unify QM and REL. But we are not there yet.

Finally, there is an intriguing question... Where the laws of physics, before they separated, they same laws as we know them today? Was time the same in the beginning as it is today?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, the misunderstanding would seem to be that I'm talking about the potential for what exists outside of the universe to follow none of the rules that exist within the universe.

 

[Rosy]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, ding, et al,

OK, there is a misunderstanding here. "Almost" all mathematical equations that have a graphic form to some power, has the potential for more than one solution. Basing a concept as complex as space and time, on one single solution, → from one single evaluation is dangerous.

We know that "Quantum Mechanics" (QM) and "Relativity" (REL) [sometimes expressed as the general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT)] do not match-up. Yet each has been tested over and over again, and individually are both sound and valid. Yet, as we see it today, they are incompatible theories.

I understand that.

But the formation of space and time according to the laws of physics tells us that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

No they don't. You're just making that assumption, which is a silly assumption to be making.

(COMMENT)

In the universe we know today, scientist generally say: there are four (4) fundamental forces.

• The Weak Force (WF)
  
• The Strong Force (SF)
  
• The Electromagnetic Force (EMF)
  
• Gravity (G)

• 
• Big Bang
• David Darling

The QM describes the first three (WF, SF, EMF). And REL generally describes G (the shape of space-time). So some might say that the theories (QM and REL) are so different that they cannot be unified [The Grand Unification Theory (GUT) or the Theory of Everything (ToE)].

Now, just as Sir Issac Newton needed to invent "calculas" to explain several aspects of the motion of planets; there may be a need to further invent another form of mathematics (beyond Newtonian Math) that will help explain the solutions that unify QM and REL. But we are not there yet.

Finally, there is an intriguing question... Where the laws of physics, before they separated, they same laws as we know them today? Was time the same in the beginning as it is today?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, the misunderstanding would seem to be that I'm talking about the potential for what exists outside of the universe to follow none of the rules that exist within the universe.

Actually none of what we understand now allows for continued speeded up expansion of the universe. So our understanding is clearly flawed

 

[BreezeWood]

That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

the differential between matter and energy.

- that is the condition of the cyclical event where all matter was compressed into energy the point of singularity from where the energy escapes compression to transform back to matter causing the expansion and a renewed cycle.

 

[Montrovant]

We already discussed that. Depending on how you define the Big Bang, inflation happened just prior to or just after the BB.

In either case, inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe, but not the creation of the energy of the universe, from everything I've seen. Think of it as similar to evolution: you can have evolutionary theory without explaining how life was created, because evolution only deals with how life acts once it already exists. Inflation deals with how the universe rapidly expanded after the energy which began the universe already existed.

No, you have that totally wrong. Inflation is how matter and energy got into the universe. Can you show me where anyone says otherwise than you?

Here's the interview where Vilenkin said we started with the laws of physics. Starting at 4:57 they begin that part of the discussion.

It's already been brought up, but sure.

"The discovery, if confirmed, will also lend support to the inflation model in cosmology – the hypothesis that the universe underwent a brief period of exponential expansion immediately after the big bang"
What is cosmic inflation?| Explore | physics.org

"According to the theory of inflation, the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang."
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology: The Origins of the Universe: Inflation Introduction

"Cosmic inflation is the idea that the very early universe went through a period of accelerated, exponential expansion during the first 10-35 of a second before settling down to the more sedate rate of expansion we are still experiencing, so that all of the observable universe originated in a small (indeed, microscopic) causally-connected region."
Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion"
Inflation for Beginners

"Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second."
Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Note that in every definition, inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe after the energy which expanded already existed.

Note further that in a couple of the definitions it describes it as happening after the Big Bang. Apparently the Big Bang is defined slightly different by different people, as I mentioned earlier.

I am reposting this.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the big bang singularity with the beginning of space and time. The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's just a mathematical thing. Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. So logically that occurred before the so called big bang singularity.

I think of the big bang as the beginning of the expansion and cooling. Inflation is the build up of energy and matter before the expansion and cooling of the universe.

Well, I just gave you definitions of inflation from multiple sources indicating that you are incorrect about what it entails. I'm not sure what else to say. It's just a matter of mislabeling.

Just consider the name inflation. To inflate is not to create, it is to expand. A balloon can only be inflated after the balloon exists.

Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion and cooling of the universe.

The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

But if you want to characterize it that the big bang came first and then inflation occurred, please do so. That makes no sense to me. If people are characterizing it that way, I believe they are characterizing it wrong. Inflation theory was discovered after Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations so I can see how confusion occurred, but Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations never explained how matter and energy were created. Inflation does.

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Read the part you put in blue and larger letters. How can you possibly claim that inflation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe after you just highlighted a quote which states that inflation is about the expansion of the universe?

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Big Bang definition differences. Before inflation was conceived, the Big Bang was proposed based on a much less rapid expansion of the universe, which was expected to go back to the point of a singularity. Once inflation became a generally accepted idea, some people considered the Big Bang to be the point at which that less rapid expansion started after inflation. Other people consider the idea of the Big Bang to be the expansion of the universe from the singularity, regardless of whether the expansion is in the rapid, inflation stage or the slower stage following. Because of that, they consider the Big Bang to mean the point at which expansion began, not the point at which more gradual expansion began, so the BB happens before the rapid expansion of inflation. It really isn't an important distinction except in the sense of everyone in the conversation understanding which starting point for the BB one is using.

You asked me to provide sources for the idea that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, rather than the creation of the energy of the universe, and I have done so. I provided quite a few sources, and I also quoted Vilenkin from an interview you linked to. Perhaps you could show where inflation is about the creation of the energy of the universe rather than the rapid expansion of the universe?

 

[Montrovant]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

 

[Rosy]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

 

[Montrovant]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

 

[Rosy]

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

 

[Montrovant]

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

 

[Rosy]

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

 

[Montrovant]

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

 

[BreezeWood]

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

.

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity.

that is the reverse trajectory - when going forward the trajectory for all matter is at a finite angle as the distances between objects becomes greater over time. the forward angular trajectory will eventually culminate for all mater at the same time back to the original point of singularity recreating the cyclical compaction of matter back into energy.

 

[Rosy]

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

 

[ding]

No, you have that totally wrong. Inflation is how matter and energy got into the universe. Can you show me where anyone says otherwise than you?

Here's the interview where Vilenkin said we started with the laws of physics. Starting at 4:57 they begin that part of the discussion.

It's already been brought up, but sure.

"The discovery, if confirmed, will also lend support to the inflation model in cosmology – the hypothesis that the universe underwent a brief period of exponential expansion immediately after the big bang"
What is cosmic inflation?| Explore | physics.org

"According to the theory of inflation, the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang."
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology: The Origins of the Universe: Inflation Introduction

"Cosmic inflation is the idea that the very early universe went through a period of accelerated, exponential expansion during the first 10-35 of a second before settling down to the more sedate rate of expansion we are still experiencing, so that all of the observable universe originated in a small (indeed, microscopic) causally-connected region."
Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion"
Inflation for Beginners

"Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second."
Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Note that in every definition, inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe after the energy which expanded already existed.

Note further that in a couple of the definitions it describes it as happening after the Big Bang. Apparently the Big Bang is defined slightly different by different people, as I mentioned earlier.

I am reposting this.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the big bang singularity with the beginning of space and time. The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's just a mathematical thing. Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. So logically that occurred before the so called big bang singularity.

I think of the big bang as the beginning of the expansion and cooling. Inflation is the build up of energy and matter before the expansion and cooling of the universe.

Well, I just gave you definitions of inflation from multiple sources indicating that you are incorrect about what it entails. I'm not sure what else to say. It's just a matter of mislabeling.

Just consider the name inflation. To inflate is not to create, it is to expand. A balloon can only be inflated after the balloon exists.

Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion and cooling of the universe.

The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

But if you want to characterize it that the big bang came first and then inflation occurred, please do so. That makes no sense to me. If people are characterizing it that way, I believe they are characterizing it wrong. Inflation theory was discovered after Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations so I can see how confusion occurred, but Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations never explained how matter and energy were created. Inflation does.

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Read the part you put in blue and larger letters. How can you possibly claim that inflation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe after you just highlighted a quote which states that inflation is about the expansion of the universe?

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Big Bang definition differences. Before inflation was conceived, the Big Bang was proposed based on a much less rapid expansion of the universe, which was expected to go back to the point of a singularity. Once inflation became a generally accepted idea, some people considered the Big Bang to be the point at which that less rapid expansion started after inflation. Other people consider the idea of the Big Bang to be the expansion of the universe from the singularity, regardless of whether the expansion is in the rapid, inflation stage or the slower stage following. Because of that, they consider the Big Bang to mean the point at which expansion began, not the point at which more gradual expansion began, so the BB happens before the rapid expansion of inflation. It really isn't an important distinction except in the sense of everyone in the conversation understanding which starting point for the BB one is using.

You asked me to provide sources for the idea that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, rather than the creation of the energy of the universe, and I have done so. I provided quite a few sources, and I also quoted Vilenkin from an interview you linked to. Perhaps you could show where inflation is about the creation of the energy of the universe rather than the rapid expansion of the universe?

Because the theory is about explaining how space and time were created.

In other words the initial conditions.

Everything thing after that point is based on Einstein’s field equations.

 

[Rosy]

It's already been brought up, but sure.

"The discovery, if confirmed, will also lend support to the inflation model in cosmology – the hypothesis that the universe underwent a brief period of exponential expansion immediately after the big bang"
What is cosmic inflation?| Explore | physics.org

"According to the theory of inflation, the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang."
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology: The Origins of the Universe: Inflation Introduction

"Cosmic inflation is the idea that the very early universe went through a period of accelerated, exponential expansion during the first 10-35 of a second before settling down to the more sedate rate of expansion we are still experiencing, so that all of the observable universe originated in a small (indeed, microscopic) causally-connected region."
Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion"
Inflation for Beginners

"Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second."
Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Note that in every definition, inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe after the energy which expanded already existed.

Note further that in a couple of the definitions it describes it as happening after the Big Bang. Apparently the Big Bang is defined slightly different by different people, as I mentioned earlier.

I am reposting this.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the big bang singularity with the beginning of space and time. The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's just a mathematical thing. Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. So logically that occurred before the so called big bang singularity.

I think of the big bang as the beginning of the expansion and cooling. Inflation is the build up of energy and matter before the expansion and cooling of the universe.

Well, I just gave you definitions of inflation from multiple sources indicating that you are incorrect about what it entails. I'm not sure what else to say. It's just a matter of mislabeling.

Just consider the name inflation. To inflate is not to create, it is to expand. A balloon can only be inflated after the balloon exists.

Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion and cooling of the universe.

The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

But if you want to characterize it that the big bang came first and then inflation occurred, please do so. That makes no sense to me. If people are characterizing it that way, I believe they are characterizing it wrong. Inflation theory was discovered after Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations so I can see how confusion occurred, but Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations never explained how matter and energy were created. Inflation does.

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Read the part you put in blue and larger letters. How can you possibly claim that inflation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe after you just highlighted a quote which states that inflation is about the expansion of the universe?

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Big Bang definition differences. Before inflation was conceived, the Big Bang was proposed based on a much less rapid expansion of the universe, which was expected to go back to the point of a singularity. Once inflation became a generally accepted idea, some people considered the Big Bang to be the point at which that less rapid expansion started after inflation. Other people consider the idea of the Big Bang to be the expansion of the universe from the singularity, regardless of whether the expansion is in the rapid, inflation stage or the slower stage following. Because of that, they consider the Big Bang to mean the point at which expansion began, not the point at which more gradual expansion began, so the BB happens before the rapid expansion of inflation. It really isn't an important distinction except in the sense of everyone in the conversation understanding which starting point for the BB one is using.

You asked me to provide sources for the idea that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, rather than the creation of the energy of the universe, and I have done so. I provided quite a few sources, and I also quoted Vilenkin from an interview you linked to. Perhaps you could show where inflation is about the creation of the energy of the universe rather than the rapid expansion of the universe?

Because the theory is about explaining how space and time were created.

In other words the initial conditions.

Everything thing after that point is based on Einstein’s field equations.

Theories do not answer they attempt to answer

 

[ding]

I am reposting this.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the big bang singularity with the beginning of space and time. The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's just a mathematical thing. Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. So logically that occurred before the so called big bang singularity.

I think of the big bang as the beginning of the expansion and cooling. Inflation is the build up of energy and matter before the expansion and cooling of the universe.

Well, I just gave you definitions of inflation from multiple sources indicating that you are incorrect about what it entails. I'm not sure what else to say. It's just a matter of mislabeling.

Just consider the name inflation. To inflate is not to create, it is to expand. A balloon can only be inflated after the balloon exists.

Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion and cooling of the universe.

The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

But if you want to characterize it that the big bang came first and then inflation occurred, please do so. That makes no sense to me. If people are characterizing it that way, I believe they are characterizing it wrong. Inflation theory was discovered after Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations so I can see how confusion occurred, but Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations never explained how matter and energy were created. Inflation does.

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Read the part you put in blue and larger letters. How can you possibly claim that inflation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe after you just highlighted a quote which states that inflation is about the expansion of the universe?

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Big Bang definition differences. Before inflation was conceived, the Big Bang was proposed based on a much less rapid expansion of the universe, which was expected to go back to the point of a singularity. Once inflation became a generally accepted idea, some people considered the Big Bang to be the point at which that less rapid expansion started after inflation. Other people consider the idea of the Big Bang to be the expansion of the universe from the singularity, regardless of whether the expansion is in the rapid, inflation stage or the slower stage following. Because of that, they consider the Big Bang to mean the point at which expansion began, not the point at which more gradual expansion began, so the BB happens before the rapid expansion of inflation. It really isn't an important distinction except in the sense of everyone in the conversation understanding which starting point for the BB one is using.

You asked me to provide sources for the idea that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, rather than the creation of the energy of the universe, and I have done so. I provided quite a few sources, and I also quoted Vilenkin from an interview you linked to. Perhaps you could show where inflation is about the creation of the energy of the universe rather than the rapid expansion of the universe?

Because the theory is about explaining how space and time were created.

In other words the initial conditions.

Everything thing after that point is based on Einstein’s field equations.

Theories do not answer they attempt to answer

Yes, that is correct. And we operate as if they are correct until one comes along that is better.

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect.

 

[ding]

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

That is correct. The singularity is when The solution to Einstein’s field equations yield infinite densities. It’s effectively the limit of the equations.

 

[ding]

A "miracle" only within a race of animals who cry when a movie star drops dead. To a real society of intelligent beings, simpy a project of sorts. Your great grandma would have called tap-a-talk a "miracle".

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Red shift and background radiation are the observations which support Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s field equations.

 

[ding]

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.