The Last Question

[jillery]

Science fiction fans will likely recognize the subject as the title to
Isaac Asimov's favorite short story he wrote:

<https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf>

It was published in 1956, before I was even aware of such questions,
nevermind wondered about them.

The following, from my second-favorite astrophysicist, is an updated
explanation of how the universe might have begun:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-uncovers-the-origin-of-the-first-light-in-the-universe-8a985cb5f02b>

<http://tinyurl.com/ydyfkgeg>

************************************
So where did this light — the first light in the Universe — first come
from? It didn’t come from stars, because it predates the stars. It
wasn’t emitted by atoms, because it predates the formation of neutral
atoms in the Universe. If we continue to extrapolate backwards to
higher and higher energies, we find some strange things out: thanks to
Einstein’s E = mc2, these quanta of light could interact with one
another, spontaneously producing particle-antiparticle pairs of matter
and antimatter!

[...]

For those of you wondering how we’ve got a Universe full of matter
(and not antimatter) today, there must have been some process that
created slightly more particles than antiparticles (to the tune of
about 1-in-1,000,000,000) from an initially symmetric state, resulting
in our observable Universe having about 10^80 matter particles and
10^89 photons left over.
************************************

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 12:59:24 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Basically, anything except God

[Bill]

Then again, maybe not. Since you accept E=mc2, you must
agree that matter and energy are the same thing and all that
exists is just different configurations of this fundamental
state of being. This will mean that nothing exists except
the configurations.

Since all matter is defined by a quantity of energy, what we
see with something like LHC is the input energy configured
into an observable output energy that is interpreted as a
particle. The particle is a measure of energy rather than a
thing in itself. Is anything at all really there?

Bill

[Bill]

Why is that? Do you have special insight?

Bill

[jillery]

If you refer above to God as cause, how does His existence explain
anything?

[Bill]

To intrude: It has been hypothesized and generally accepted,
that the universe sprang from a singularity. A point before
time and space, matter and energy existed. This singularity
was a magical region containing nothing but that would
blossom to create everything. Some folks would call this
God.

To preempt this conclusion, others have argued that the
singularity had some primordial content in which potential
universes slept. Some event upset this dormant singularity
to initiate a Big Bang and had the means to instantaneously
inflate the universe and, Presto! here we are.

Some find this more persuasive and a God "moving across the
face of the Deep". Either "explanation" is incomprehensible,
they are equally impossible to imagine yet one is preferred
over the other. Neither explanation explains anything we are
able to verify. We can only believe what we find believable
and that varies with every person. Magic is alive and well
in our imaginations.

Bill

[Steven Carlip]

On 7/23/17 12:30 PM, Bill wrote:

[...]

> To intrude: It has been hypothesized and generally accepted,
> that the universe sprang from a singularity.

That's simply not true. The *vast* majority of cosmologists
will tell you that the existence of such a singularity is
exceedingly unlikely. The idea comes from extrapolation of
known physical laws to places in which we *know* they do not
hold.

Where are you getting this from? 50-year-old pop sci?

Steve Carlip

[Steven Carlip]

On 7/23/17 10:46 AM, Bill wrote:

[...]

> Since you accept E=mc2, you must agree that matter and energy are the
> same thing and all that exists is just different configurations of
> this fundamental state of being.

No, not at all. The equation tells us that in some sense *mass*
and energy are the same thing (for a particular meaning of the
term "mass"). But "matter" is not just "mass" -- individual
types of matter have many other properties besides mass.

> This will mean that nothing exists except the configurations.

No, it doesn't. An electron and a positron have exactly the same
mass, and if they're at rest they have exactly the same energy.
But they are not at all the same -- they have opposite charges,
for instance.

> Since all matter is defined by a quantity of energy,

It is not.

> what we see with something like LHC is the input energy configured
> into an observable output energy that is interpreted as a particle.
> The particle is a measure of energy rather than a thing in itself.

This is a very basic misunderstanding of physics. A particle
produced at the LHC has a good many properties besides its energy.
At the most basic level, it has a momentum, which has a very
specific relation to its energy. It will also typically have
spin, electric charge, weak quantum numbers, and color (in the
quantum chromodynamics sense).

I don't think you've thought this through. Do you seriously
believe that when the detectors at the LHC detect a particle,
all they're determining is that there's some energy somewhere?

Steve Carlip

[Ray Martinez]

https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/

Each human being didn't begin as a single fertilized egg?

The universe didn't begin in like fashion, from a singularity acted upon by the Big Bang and the ensuing rapid inflation?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/

"But suppose, seeing this behavior, we use these equations try to follow time backwards — just as we tried to infer the past of an embryo. We find our equations suggest a universe in which the further you go back, the hotter it was, the more dense, and the more rapidly it was expanding. If you keep going back and back, then (in the Old Big Bang model, before we knew about inflation) you find that at a sufficiently early time, 13.7 billion years ago, the density, temperature and expansion rate start off as infinite. That’s a singularity!"

The most disturbing part of this quotation is the word "infinite."

I don't understand.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

The last few sentences of the page you cite are

"Yes, a singularity often turns up in our equations when we extend them
as far as they can go in the past; but a singularity of this sort is far
from likely to be an aspect of nature, and instead should be interpreted
as a sign of what we don’t yet understand."

In other words the author is agreement with Steve Carlip that the
universe probably didn't start from a singularity. (A single fertilised
egg isn't a singularity either - singularity (in this context) is a
technical term from mathematics.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill]

If there is some other way to produce a particle then what's
the point of the LHC? Energy is injected to a system and a
particle pops out; there is nothing else in the system. Are
the particles discovered really there or are they just a way
to measure the energy? I don't know. I see the explanations
but they seem to be just definitions, descriptions of what
is believed to be happening. Again, I don't know and I
wonder if anyone does.

Bill

[Bill]

It's the most common explanation of cosmic origins. The
alternatives require a similar mechanism so your correction,
while appreciated, doesn't seem relevant. The universe came
from nothing. How that happened doesn't really diminish the
impossibility of it.

Bill

[Steven Carlip]

On 7/23/17 5:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/17 12:30 PM, Bill wrote:

>> [...]
>>> To intrude: It has been hypothesized and generally accepted, that
>>> the universe sprang from a singularity.

>> That's simply not true. The *vast* majority of cosmologists will
>> tell you that the existence of such a singularity is exceedingly
>> unlikely. The idea comes from extrapolation of known physical laws
>> to places in which we *know* they do not hold.

>> Where are you getting this from? 50-year-old pop sci?

>> Steve Carlip

> It's the most common explanation of cosmic origins.

No, it's not. Among scientists who actually work in this
area, it's perhaps the least common explanation.

> The alternatives require a similar mechanism so your correction,
> while appreciated, doesn't seem relevant.

What specific "alternatives" did you have in mind?

Steve Carlip

[Steven Carlip]

On 7/23/17 5:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 4:25:05 PM UTC-7, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 7/23/17 12:30 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> To intrude: It has been hypothesized and generally accepted,
>>> that the universe sprang from a singularity.
>>
>> That's simply not true. The *vast* majority of cosmologists
>> will tell you that the existence of such a singularity is
>> exceedingly unlikely. The idea comes from extrapolation of
>> known physical laws to places in which we *know* they do not
>> hold.
>>
>> Where are you getting this from? 50-year-old pop sci?
>>
>> Steve Carlip
>
> https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/

This is a good reference.

> Each human being didn't begin as a single fertilized egg?

A single fertilized egg is not a singularity. In particular,
it's not infinitely small.

> The universe didn't begin in like fashion,

I don't know what "like fashion" means here. It certainly didn't
start from a single fertilized egg...

> from a singularity acted upon by the Big Bang

No. That's not what the "Big Bang" means.

> and the ensuing rapid inflation?

Inflation, probably.

Steve Carlip

[Bill]

Anything you offer as an explanation to cosmic origins that
doesn't include a singularity ...

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 6:15:04 PM UTC-7, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 7/23/17 5:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 4:25:05 PM UTC-7, Steven Carlip wrote:
> >> On 7/23/17 12:30 PM, Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>> To intrude: It has been hypothesized and generally accepted,
> >>> that the universe sprang from a singularity.
> >>
> >> That's simply not true. The *vast* majority of cosmologists
> >> will tell you that the existence of such a singularity is
> >> exceedingly unlikely. The idea comes from extrapolation of
> >> known physical laws to places in which we *know* they do not
> >> hold.
> >>
> >> Where are you getting this from? 50-year-old pop sci?
> >>
> >> Steve Carlip
> >
> > https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/
>
> This is a good reference.
>
> > Each human being didn't begin as a single fertilized egg?
>
> A single fertilized egg is not a singularity. In particular,
> it's not infinitely small.
>

Fertilized egg is an analogy obtained from the "good reference" (your phrase).

> > The universe didn't begin in like fashion,
>
> I don't know what "like fashion" means here. It certainly didn't
> start from a single fertilized egg...

Nobody suggested that it did. The good reference likened a singularity to a fertilized egg, in other words, something very small became something very big. My understanding of the analogy says the universe started as something very small and became or inflated or expanded into something very big. I am here as a learner, hoping a knowledgeable person like yourself would clear up my misunderstandings in a few short sentences.

>
> > from a singularity acted upon by the Big Bang
>
> No. That's not what the "Big Bang" means.
>
> > and the ensuing rapid inflation?
>
> Inflation, probably.
>
> Steve Carlip

Thanks, Steve.

Ray

[jillery]

It might help if you continued to read at least to the next paragraph:

**********************************************
But would you have a reason to believe in that singularity?

I’ve talked over the years with many experts in “quantum gravity” [the
poorly understood but required blend of Einstein’s gravity and quantum
physics, a blend that will be needed to explain extreme gravitational
phenomena] and I’ve never spoken to one who believed that the
universe began with a real singularity. Why? Because

* the singularity arises from using Einstein’s equations for gravity

* but we know Einstein’s equations aren’t sufficient — they aren’t
able to describe certain extreme gravitational phenomena.
***********************************************

HTH, but I doubt it.

[jillery]

AIUI Inflation doesn't include a singularity.

[jillery]

If you would read the entire article with comprehension, you would
know that it explains how and why that analogy is flawed.

And whether the universe in fact began as you described, that is not
how your cited article describes it.

[jillery]

A singularity is a mathematical construct based on certain
assumptions. Carlip's correction is that we know said assumptions
aren't valid under the conditions of a singularity. How is that not
relevant?

[Ernest Major]

There are a variety of competing models out there, none of which, as far
as I know, command wide acceptance. These include eternal inflation,
loop quantum cosmology, and the ekyprotic universe.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill]

What is noteworthy is that there is no model, no theory, no
data that verifies anything. Since nothing is known, there's
not much point in defending any point of view. So why not
the singularity or Big Bang? Nit-picking or science?

Bill

[rolf.a...@gmail.com]

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ol3g89$nll$1...@dont-email.me...

Isn't the universe made of borrowed resources that will be returened to
wherever they came from at the end of the game, with zero in the balance?

Rolf

[jillery]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT), trol...@go.com wrote:

>Of course it may very well require some faith
>to believe that the universe had a beginning.
>
>Another theory is that the universe existed
>forever.
>
>At least some of this clearly depends on the
>meaning of the word 'universe'.


And "beginning". Many Inflation models imply arbitrarily many
independent universes being constantly Inflated from an infinite and
ever-present false vacuum.

[Bill]

There are models that imply that the Earth sits on the backs
of elephants on the back of a turtle (Terry Pratchet and
others). There exist models of all kinds of things, they are
fun things to think about but not all of them should be
taken seriously.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

A few of the less competent popularizers of cosmology do describe the Big Bang that way. But not the actual cosmologists. There are decent on-line courses that would explain this stuff for you better than the Sci Channel.

[Bill]

Actually it's the actual cosmologists who keep adding new
magical incantations to an already impenetrable body of
mythology. Through the various sciences, we know that any
hypothesis can become credible if enough credible people
find it credible. If you fall outside that happy consensus,
you're wrong. Progress reigns ...

Bill

[jillery]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:25:28 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT), trol...@go.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-7, jillery
>>>wrote:
>>>> Science fiction fans will likely recognize the subject
>>>> as the title to Isaac Asimov's favorite short story he
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> It was published in 1956, before I was even aware of
>>>> such questions, nevermind wondered about them.
>>>>
>>>> The following, from my second-favorite astrophysicist,
>>>> is an updated explanation of how the universe might have
>>>> begun:
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-uncovers-the-origin-of-the-first-light-in-the-universe-8a985cb5f02b>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/ydyfkgeg>
>>>>
>>>> ************************************

>>>> So where did this light ? the first light in the
>>>> Universe ? first come from? It didn?t come from stars,
>>>> because it predates the stars. It wasn?t emitted by

>>>> atoms, because it predates the formation of neutral
>>>> atoms in the Universe. If we continue to extrapolate
>>>> backwards to higher and higher energies, we find some

>>>> strange things out: thanks to Einstein?s E = mc2, these

>>>> quanta of light could interact with one another,
>>>> spontaneously producing particle-antiparticle pairs of
>>>> matter and antimatter!
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>

>>>> For those of you wondering how we?ve got a Universe full

By definition, scientific models merely represent aspects of reality.
Their value lies in their ability to help predict unknown features of
reality. My impression is your perception of reality is well
represented by elephants humping turtles.

[Robert Carnegie]

Is it relevant to mention that tax authorities
are having mixed results from pursuing people
who decided to be paid for work, not as a salary,
taxed, but as money loaned and just never to
be paid back?

This is called "EBT" and it does seem to be
not working as well as people had hoped.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:25:28 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT), trol...@go.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-7, jillery
>>>wrote:
>>>> Science fiction fans will likely recognize the subject
>>>> as the title to Isaac Asimov's favorite short story he
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> It was published in 1956, before I was even aware of
>>>> such questions, nevermind wondered about them.
>>>>
>>>> The following, from my second-favorite astrophysicist,
>>>> is an updated explanation of how the universe might have
>>>> begun:
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-uncovers-the-origin-of-the-first-light-in-the-universe-8a985cb5f02b>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/ydyfkgeg>
>>>>
>>>> ************************************

>>>> So where did this light ? the first light in the

>>>> Universe ? first come from? It didn?t come from stars,
>>>> because it predates the stars. It wasn?t emitted by

>>>> atoms, because it predates the formation of neutral
>>>> atoms in the Universe. If we continue to extrapolate
>>>> backwards to higher and higher energies, we find some

>>>> strange things out: thanks to Einstein?s E = mc2, these

>>>> quanta of light could interact with one another,
>>>> spontaneously producing particle-antiparticle pairs of
>>>> matter and antimatter!
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>

>>>> For those of you wondering how we?ve got a Universe full

True; only those which account for all known phenomena,
whether or not those ignorant of those phenomena, and
lacking the educational background to understand them, can
understand the models, should be taken seriously. From your
comment above you seem unable to distinguish which are
which, and from that, and from previous comments in multiple
threads, you seem proud of that fact.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

I 've been reading about astronomy and physics since I was a
teenager because it interests me. This spans quite a bit of
the history of these disciplines. During all this time a lot
has changed so that what was once considered fact has
mutated into new facts. Trace this history back 50 years and
discover how little the past resembles the present. What you
believe is evidence of education, is obsolete and will
become obsolete again. There is no static knowledge.

Bill

[jillery]

Unlike many religions, science understands that knowledge is
contingent. Your comments above imply you think changing knowledge
based on new evidence is a Bad Thing (c).

Either way, you conflate knowledge with reality. As with perceptions,
that our understanding of X changes doesn't alter X.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 13:29:06 -0500, the following appeared

Of course not; the business of science is continuing
education, and everything we learn changes our
understanding. Scientists know that, and unlike you don't
consider it a problem, and don't claim that any snapshot is
"Final Truth". If you want "static knowledge" take up a
religion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 10:07:41 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

What, no rebuttal? OK.

[Bill]

What's to rebut?

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:17:09 -0500, the following appeared

Nothing you're able to rebut.