Big Bang not the Beginning

[Nofear]

I've tried to say this several times here. Here is a more sophisticated presentation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/

"What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!"

I and my interpretation/understanding of LDS theology have no problems with the Big Bang. I still hold some agnosticism about inflation (leaning against) as we still have no scientific understanding of at least half the universe (e.g. spirit matter) but just because I don't understand everything doesn't make me ignore what is clearly before me (e.g. a dark night sky (points for those that understand that allusion)).

 

More of an FYI post than a discussion post. But hopefully it informs future commentary.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see how we could prove that one way or the other. To me it is like the question what were we before the egg and sperm met? No supernatural answers allowed.

[RevTestament]

41 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I've tried to say this several times here. Here is a more sophisticated presentation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/

"What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!"

I and my interpretation/understanding of LDS theology have no problems with the Big Bang. I still hold some agnosticism about inflation (leaning against) as we still have no scientific understanding of at least half the universe (e.g. spirit matter) but just because I don't understand everything doesn't make me ignore what is clearly before me (e.g. a dark night sky (points for those that understand that allusion)).

 

More of an FYI post than a discussion post. But hopefully it informs future commentary.

In my interpretation of scripture "the beginning" is at most the beginning of our galaxy. I generally consider it the beginning of our solar system. That leaves room for many other prior worlds with their own beginnings and endings.

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

In my interpretation of scripture "the beginning" is at most the beginning of our galaxy. I generally consider it the beginning of our solar system. That leaves room for many other prior worlds with their own beginnings and endings.

I quite agree. Even Protestants and Catholics who want to endorse the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo would do well to adopt the narrow Genesis interpretation (and still believe creatio ex nihilo, even though there are significant philosophical reasons to reject it).

Edited September 21, 2017 by Nofear

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't see how we could prove that one way or the other. To me it is like the question what were we before the egg and sperm met? No supernatural answers allowed.

That is the traditional knock about multiverse models. I think theologically Mormons need something like that since we have a materialist ontology and believe in something akin to an infinite past. 

[Nofear]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That is the traditional knock about multiverse models. I think theologically Mormons need something like that since we have a materialist ontology and believe in something akin to an infinite past. 

I suppose that is an apt comparison. Well, except that we know about the vast preponderance of evidence that supports The Big Bang model (but not multiverse models). We know we don't understand some 95% of the universe's content (leaving ample conceptual room for things like spirit matter). And that there is nothing really to suggest the need of a multiverse other than, hey, why not speculate about it. Theologically and scientifically it is entirely unnecessary and theologically multiverses pose problems (one example: a corporeal body moving from one universe to another -- no proposed multiverse model would allow such an option).

[Physics Guy]

Forbes is not a scientific journal, and on this point it is not even as good as Wikipedia or any of many physics blogs around the web.

Inflationary cosmology is not an alternative to the Big Bang. It's an add-on feature which makes the expansion of the universe take off really fast, shortly after the Big Bang. The only sense in which the Big Bang has been known to be false for forty years is if you mean that the plain vanilla Big Bang, without inflation, leaves some striking facts as unexplained coincidences, whereas adding inflation makes those apparent coincidences all but inevitable. So physicists tend to figure that the improved Big Bang with inflation is more likely right than the original basic Big Bang, without.

From a lay point of view, however, the difference is only a matter of whether the whole universe expanded mind-bogglingly mind-bogglingly fast in its first few unimaginably short fractions of a second ... or only mind-bogglingly fast. In other words, it's really all still Big Bang. Speculations about multiverses are still just speculations. The Big Bang plus inflation model, with only one universe, seems to fit the data best.

[cinepro]

If only we had a Prophet, Seer and/or Revelator who could tell us.

Oh, wait...

Quote

Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/thanks-be-to-god?lang=eng

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

In my interpretation of scripture "the beginning" is at most the beginning of our galaxy. I generally consider it the beginning of our solar system. That leaves room for many other prior worlds with their own beginnings and endings.

In a sense, you are correct, I feel. The beginning, as spoken of in Genesis, appears to me to be a very general description of what happens when a solar system is created.  It starts with darkness and cold as the primordial nebula coalesces with the ignition of the central sun or star being announced as "Let there be light."  And it goes on from there.

Genesis does not describe the galaxy, or still less the rest of the visible universe.  But the galaxy and the rest of the visible universe is God's. 

When we read this (Moses 1:35,37):

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

It should be clear that we cannot number the worlds which the Father has caused to be created, and I take it that this must go beyond the solar system, and even beyond the galaxy. For one thing, in a few billion years the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy will begin merging. Therefore they must both belong to our Heavenly Father. By extension, the entire visible universe belongs to Him.

As for Forbes and the Big Bang, I don't think Forbes (or the author who wrote the article) has any validity. I agree completely with Physics Guy.

But what was there before the Big Bang? Much like division by zero, that is simply undefined.  Physics can know nothing about it.  I await God's own explanation for it. I'm sure He has it all right and tight.

[Nofear]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If only we had a Prophet, Seer and/or Revelator who could tell us.

And ironically, it is LDS theology (in my opinion) that is easily the most compatible with secular cosmology. I'll forgive the Brethren for not being cosmologists.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Forbes is not a scientific journal, and on this point it is not even as good as Wikipedia or any of many physics blogs around the web.

Inflationary cosmology is not an alternative to the Big Bang. It's an add-on feature which makes the expansion of the universe take off really fast, shortly after the Big Bang. The only sense in which the Big Bang has been known to be false for forty years is if you mean that the plain vanilla Big Bang, without inflation, leaves some striking facts as unexplained coincidences, whereas adding inflation makes those apparent coincidences all but inevitable. So physicists tend to figure that the improved Big Bang with inflation is more likely right than the original basic Big Bang, without.

From a lay point of view, however, the difference is only a matter of whether the whole universe expanded mind-bogglingly mind-bogglingly fast in its first few unimaginably short fractions of a second ... or only mind-bogglingly fast. In other words, it's really all still Big Bang. Speculations about multiverses are still just speculations. The Big Bang plus inflation model, with only one universe, seems to fit the data best.

 All excellent points. Plus, for doubters, the only issues with the big bang really come very, very early on. But even by 1 second the universe is so radically different so as to make the places where decades ago there were debates kind of moot. Tons of evidence for the big bang with, as you note, just nuance that was debated about.

The multiverse really has zero evidence for it despite claims popping up at times. I vaguely recall several PBS documentaries claiming there was weak evidence for it but I think that was misrepresenting what constitutes evidence. That said, I think there is a certain elegance to the multiverse even ignoring the Mormon theological need for such a thing. Ignoring theology, it would seem rather odd if this universe was all there was.

[Nofear]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Forbes is not a scientific journal, and on this point it is not even as good as Wikipedia or any of many physics blogs around the web.

Inflationary cosmology is not an alternative to the Big Bang. It's an add-on feature which makes the expansion of the universe take off really fast, shortly after the Big Bang. The only sense in which the Big Bang has been known to be false for forty years is if you mean that the plain vanilla Big Bang, without inflation, leaves some striking facts as unexplained coincidences, whereas adding inflation makes those apparent coincidences all but inevitable. So physicists tend to figure that the improved Big Bang with inflation is more likely right than the original basic Big Bang, without.

From a lay point of view, however, the difference is only a matter of whether the whole universe expanded mind-bogglingly mind-bogglingly fast in its first few unimaginably short fractions of a second ... or only mind-bogglingly fast. In other words, it's really all still Big Bang. Speculations about multiverses are still just speculations. The Big Bang plus inflation model, with only one universe, seems to fit the data best.

No, he's a trained cosmologist with more credentials likely than any here (even myself). Ad hominem rejection, while it has its place, is foolish here. Moreover, he argues as you do, that inflation solves many problems and has observational evidence. It is me who thinks the paradigm is insufficient and entereing territory where a more complete understanding of the univere's composition will be necessary.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That is the traditional knock about multiverse models. I think theologically Mormons need something like that since we have a materialist ontology and believe in something akin to an infinite past. 

I allow for a multiverse. I just don't have a clue as to how it would work.

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, Nofear said:

No, he's a trained cosmologist with more credentials likely than any here (even myself). Ad hominem rejection, while it has its place, is foolish here. Moreover, he argues as you do, that inflation solves many problems and has observational evidence. It is me who thinks the paradigm is insufficient and entereing territory where a more complete understanding of the univere's composition will be necessary.

He's a physicist, but so too is Physics Guy. So your reply is a bit odd. I'm not sure he has that fantastic of credentials. He seems primarily known due to his blogging not his papers. He's a professor at Lewis & Clark College which isn't exactly great in the reputation for theoretical physics. If he was at Berkeley, Harvard, UT Austin or some place like that I think you'd have more of a point.  Not that it matters in this case since he's just explaining fairly well known things. But pointing to credentialism can be as problematic as ad hominem.

For more fun get at Woit or Motl's posts on the subjects. Again, not true just because they say it, but at least they have some credential respect.

Edited September 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Stargazer]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 All excellent points. Plus, for doubters, the only issues with the big bang really come very, very early on. But even by 1 second the universe is so radically different so as to make the places where decades ago there were debates kind of moot. Tons of evidence for the big bang with, as you note, just nuance that was debated about.

The multiverse really has zero evidence for it despite claims popping up at times. I vaguely recall several PBS documentaries claiming there was weak evidence for it but I think that was misrepresenting what constitutes evidence. That said, I think there is a certain elegance to the multiverse even ignoring the Mormon theological need for such a thing. Ignoring theology, it would seem rather odd if this universe was all there was.

The only evidence for the multiverse is that it is mathematically possible. There are some people who will believe anything, if only the math supports it somehow.  

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The only evidence for the multiverse is that it is mathematically possible. There are some people who will believe anything, if only the math supports it somehow.  

That which is not forbidden is compulsory. 

OK, not a great argument but at least one we can't dismiss out of hand.

[Calm]

Math is God's language.

[Freedom]

In my opinion, Genesis 1 is not referring to the formation of the universe, galaxy or the earth. We are barking up the wrong tree if we are trying to make a link. Me saying I am so hungry I could eat a horse has nothing to do with eating horses nor does it suggest my capacity to eat is any greater than any other human. 

[PeterPear]

“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits. …"

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-17?lang=eng

Big Bang. Phooey.

 

[Tsuzuki]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

And ironically, it is LDS theology (in my opinion) that is easily the most compatible with secular cosmology. I'll forgive the Brethren for not being cosmologists.

You might do well to broaden your horizons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

[Physics Guy]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

No, he's a trained cosmologist with more credentials likely than any here (even myself). Ad hominem rejection, while it has its place, is foolish here. Moreover, he argues as you do, that inflation solves many problems and has observational evidence. It is me who thinks the paradigm is insufficient and entereing territory where a more complete understanding of the univere's composition will be necessary.

I was attacking the authority of Forbes, not the author's credentials. Forbes is a poor source for science news. It generally gets at least part of the story right, but you can't trust it not to slip in some nonsense. This is an issue separate from the author's expertise: a Forbes editor may demand some more provocative statements in order to sell better. Perhaps because of that kind of pressure, some of what this guy wrote was inaccurate hype—especially the money quote about how we know for sure that the universe did not start with a Big Bang. He would never have gotten that published in a science journal even if he were a Nobel laureate.

(I'm not a Nobel laureate, either, but my publication list in major physics journals is a fair bit longer than Ethan Siegel's. My list doesn't include any papers on cosmology, but I hung out in a research group that did do cosmology for four years as a post-doc, and I recently had to brush up on the subject in order to grade a thesis on loop-inspired quantum cosmology. I've heard plenty of nonsense from full professors, and plenty of sound understanding from undergraduates, so I'm not generally impressed by scientific credentials. I do have them, though.)

Everyone knows that cosmology is very uncertain. It's about things that happened billions of years ago, under conditions far beyond anything we have been able to investigate directly. Inflation is indeed a good theory, as cosmology goes. It simply isn't, and was never supposed to be, a replacement for the Big Bang. It's a refinement that leaves the basic picture the same.

Heck, Siegel surely knows that. If he really believed that we had known for forty years with certainty that the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, would he have called the blog that is his main scientific outlet Starts With A Bang?

Edited September 22, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That which is not forbidden is compulsory. 

OK, not a great argument but at least one we can't dismiss out of hand.

Well, that's not a wrong way to state it.  Murphy's Law is statistically valid by the way. If something CAN happen, however unlikely, given enough time it WILL happen.  I guess the only question is will it happen at the worst possible moment.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

If only we had a Prophet, Seer and/or Revelator who could tell us.

Oh, wait...

 

I question the motivation that would cause someone to publicly speak on a subject they know little about.

[Nofear]

Yes. News places do a horrible job at reporting science. His blog precedes Forbes but was picked up because of popularity. Doesn't change news as a horrible source. Doesn't automatically disqualify it. It isn't the first post I've seen from him that honestly confesses what the Big Bang Theory states and doesn't state. I've enjoyed much of what he stated in the past.

You're absolutely right, there are plenty of full professors who spout nonsense. The ad hominem and pro hominem doesn't interest me though. You are welcome to believe as you please. Doesn't bother me.

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

You might do well to broaden your horizons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

I thought I wrote Christian theology. I apparently didn't. Oops.