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

[Montrovant]

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.

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

 

[ding]

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.

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

 

[Montrovant]

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

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.

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

 

[Vastator]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?

Not sure...

 

[ding]

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.

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

 

[ding]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?

Not sure...

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

 

[Vastator]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?

Not sure...

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

It would be forming that matter a the point of expulsion.

 

[ding]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?

Not sure...

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

It would be forming that matter a the point of expulsion.

Forming matter or transferring matter?

Are you saying that new matter is being created? As in matter that never existed before anywhere else?

 

[Vastator]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?

Not sure...

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

It would be forming that matter a the point of expulsion.

Forming matter or transferring matter?

Are you saying that new matter is being created? As in matter that never existed before anywhere else?

According to black hole theory. What is inside a black hole isn’t matter in the sense, of “matter” outside the black hole. Matter is ripped apart in a black hole.
More simply... If ten pounds of gold get sucked into a black hole. Would that mandate that ten pounds of gold be ejected from its counterpart white hole? Firstly, I don’t know. But I think not nessecary so. The contents of the hole would have to be reassembled into gold. Reassembly can only occur outside of the hole.

 

[ding]

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?

Not sure...

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

It would be forming that matter a the point of expulsion.

Forming matter or transferring matter?

Are you saying that new matter is being created? As in matter that never existed before anywhere else?

According to black hole theory. What is inside a black hole isn’t matter in the sense, of “matter outside the black hole. Matter is ripped apart in a black hole.
More simply... If ten pounds of gold get sucked into a black hole. Would that mandate that ten pounds of gold be ejected from its counterpart white hole? Firstly, I don’t know. But I think not nessecary so. The contents of the hole would have to be reassembled into gold. Reassembly can only occur outside of the hole.

Right. But matter and energy are equivalent. That what the whole E=mC^2 thing is about. It goes in as matter and gets ripped into subatomic particles. Now if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and is the formation of a new universe, those sub atomic particles rapidly form hydrogen and helium when it begins to expand and cool.

So what I am asking you is do you believe that is all the matter that forms the new universe?

 

[Vastator]

Not sure...

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

It would be forming that matter a the point of expulsion.

Forming matter or transferring matter?

Are you saying that new matter is being created? As in matter that never existed before anywhere else?

According to black hole theory. What is inside a black hole isn’t matter in the sense, of “matter outside the black hole. Matter is ripped apart in a black hole.
More simply... If ten pounds of gold get sucked into a black hole. Would that mandate that ten pounds of gold be ejected from its counterpart white hole? Firstly, I don’t know. But I think not nessecary so. The contents of the hole would have to be reassembled into gold. Reassembly can only occur outside of the hole.

Right. But matter and energy are equivalent. That what the whole E=mC^2 thing is about. It goes in as matter and gets ripped into subatomic particles. Now if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and is the formation of a new universe, those sub atomic particles rapidly form hydrogen and helium when it begins to expand and cool.

So what I am asking you is do you believe that is all the matter that forms the new universe?

There isn’t enough b erifiable information available to form a “belief”. I’m satisfied to accept that we don’t know it all yet. It actually makes things more exciting. New discoveries to be made...

 

[ding]

Why not?

If matter is being drawn into the black hole from our universe and being expelled into another universe (something I don’t believe) and the white hole is what forms the other universe, where else is that universe getting its matter if not from our universe?

It would be forming that matter a the point of expulsion.

Forming matter or transferring matter?

Are you saying that new matter is being created? As in matter that never existed before anywhere else?

According to black hole theory. What is inside a black hole isn’t matter in the sense, of “matter outside the black hole. Matter is ripped apart in a black hole.
More simply... If ten pounds of gold get sucked into a black hole. Would that mandate that ten pounds of gold be ejected from its counterpart white hole? Firstly, I don’t know. But I think not nessecary so. The contents of the hole would have to be reassembled into gold. Reassembly can only occur outside of the hole.

Right. But matter and energy are equivalent. That what the whole E=mC^2 thing is about. It goes in as matter and gets ripped into subatomic particles. Now if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and is the formation of a new universe, those sub atomic particles rapidly form hydrogen and helium when it begins to expand and cool.

So what I am asking you is do you believe that is all the matter that forms the new universe?

There isn’t enough b erifiable information available to form a “belief”. I’m satisfied to accept that we don’t know it all yet. It actually makes things more exciting. New discoveries to be made...

Where I was going with that is that we can solve through inspection that white holes do not form new universes because the second law of thermodynamics tells us that that process cannot be eternal.

Basically the SLoT tells us the only way the creation of universes can be eternal is if matter and energy are created in such a way to avoid violating the first law of thermodynamics which is exactly what inflation theory does.

 

[BreezeWood]

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

.
what makes you think the BB has anything to do with the origin of either matter or energy ...

 

[Montrovant]

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. My answer would be "I don't know." I've read suppositions, including in this thread, but I don't have any firm belief about it one way or another.

Inflation does not seem to answer the question, if that's what you are driving at, although some may have used inflation to draw conclusions about the origin of matter and energy.

 

[edthecynic]

energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing

I have already nailed you in that lie on several other threads, and hear you are repeating what you know is a lie on yet another thread.
A real miracle would be to get you to tell the truth!

 

[edthecynic]

Inflation theory explains how energy and matter can be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

Creating energy from "nothing" in and of itself violates the the Law. Inflation actually claims there were EQUAL amounts of both positive and negative energy, equal amounts of two somethings is not "nothing!"

 

[edthecynic]

mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun

1. a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

Right. Like creating existence out of nothing.

There is no such thing as nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

The leading cosmological model - Inflation

Inflation: A Failed Solution - Creation Astronomy

Secular cosmologists claim that our Universe formed in a Big Bang, about 13.8 billion years ago.

Then, right after that Bang, our cosmos had a brief period of explosive expansion known as inflation. During this time, our Universe exploded outwards in size, many times faster than the speed of light.

Many non-cosmologists scratch their heads over this. How could the Universe have expanded faster than the speed of light? What was powering this alleged expansion? How did it overcome gravity?

These are excellent questions. But if you ask them, you’ll usually be told that although inflation sounds strange to the uninitiated, it’s actually a sound scientific model—a model which all cosmologists believe.

But this isn’t true.

As I’ll discuss below, inflation is not a sound scientific model. It’s a non-scientific story about mysterious, never-observed, anti-gravity energy—a story invented only because the Big Bang model has several problems, which need inflation to solve them.

Nor is it true that everybody believes in inflation.

Obviously, scientists who accept Biblical creation reject this story. But even among secular cosmologists, there is a fierce debate about inflation.

Some of it has spilled out into public view, in the pages of Scientific American magazine.

It started with an article entitled, “Pop Goes the Universe,” by three cosmologists who reject inflation. The authors pointed out some of the serious problems that inflationary theory has developed.

First, inflation is outside of known physics. “Inflation requires that the universe be filled with a high density of energy that gravitationally self-repels, thereby enhancing the expansion and causing it to speed up. It is important to note, however, that this critical ingredient, referred to as inflationary energy, is purely hypothetical; we have no direct evidence that it exists.” (The emphasis here was added; ditto for the quotes below.)

The Planck mission, which has given us the most precise measurements of the CMB (cosmic microwave background), has not provided the expected support for popular inflationary models. Instead, “the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory.”

Inflation makes predictions which have failed. For example, inflation, if it had occurred, would have produced waves of spacetime distortions in the early cosmos. These would have left visible patterns of polarization in the CMB today. If these patterns existed, the Planck mission would have observed them. But none were observed.

For inflation to start, the universe must have been in an initial state that is extremely unlikely. The overall story has become so contrived that it’s not credible. “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.”

Plus, inflation was supposed to explain how a random, non-finely-tuned Big Bang could have produced our extremely finely-tuned Universe. But now, Planck has shown that inflation needs to have a ridiculous amount of fine-tuning in its own right—which just recreates one of the main problems for the Big Bang that inflation was supposed to fix.

 

[edthecynic]

I believe he is arguing against it.

I am, too. At least the idea that it constantly inflates until it dies. I reject that theory for the sole purpose that 1 - every known law of physics tells us that the universe is bi-directional, and 2 - the math that dictates the 2nd, also resolves backward. That is to say that the same math that tells us the universe expands also tells us the universe rretracts and possible reflects back so as not to keep expanding until it experiences a thermal death.

So, if we look into a mirror, the thing you're caling a big bang of empty space would be the smallest point in space between ourselves and our reflection in that mirror.

If course, that, too, is just a theory. But it makes more sense, given that, as I said, every other law of physics tells us the universe is naturally bi-directional. And that's not even counting the fact that the same math that resolves expansion also resolves itself coming backward.

Which is also confirmed by the fact that the mater at the extremes of the universe we are capable of viewing are accelerating away from us. If the universe was running out of usable energy, as Ding postulates with his thermal equilibrium, then the matter at the extreme ends of the universe could NOT be accelerating it would be slowing down.

 

[Taz]

The creation of space and time is part of nature.