Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

ICANT, watch this short video: If you believe that before the bullet enters on the left that it was fired from a gun, and that it continues traveling to the right after it disappears from view, would you say you believe this on faith, or on the basis of evidence?If on faith, then we're all saying the same thing about the Big Bang, but you're not using words like faith and evidence in the same way everyone else is.If on the basis of evidence, then this is no different from the period during the Big Bang before T=10^-43 seconds.--Percy

It has nothing to do with the Big Bang. I'm using it to better understand how you're using words like faith and evidence. You didn't actually see the bullet emerge from a gun, but you conclude from what you can see of the bullet's path that the discharge of powder caused the bullet to fly through the air. You reached this conclusion on the basis of observational evidence.In the same way, we can't actually see the Big Bang, but we conclude from what we can observe about the universe today that it was expanding before T=10^-43 seconds just as it was after. We reach this conclusion on the basis of observational evidence.Let's say you didn't know there was any such thing as guns and you saw the video. You carefully examine and measure the bullet's path and create an equation that models its path taking into account air resistance and gravity and so forth. You notice that if you project the bullet's path backward in time far enough that it must have been traveling so fast that it would have burned up in the atmosphere, and that it would have had to have originated from a point beneath the surface of the earth. You realize this is not likely and that your mathematical model breaks down at this point. But you don't conclude that the bullet didn't exist before the point where your math breaks down, and you certainly don't ascribe your belief that the bullet still existed to faith.It's the same with the Big Bang. We closely examine and measure what we observe of the universe, and we can see that it was once all in the same place in a very hot, extremely dense state just after T=0 seconds. We create mathematical models for the behavior of the universe and discover that the model only gives us reasonable results back to about T=10^-43 seconds. That only means our model breaks down, not that the universe didn't exist before that point and that it's prior existence can only be taken on faith. We know it existed before T=10^-43 seconds because we can project the current motion of the universe back in time, just as you projected the motion of the bullet back in time. The problems with the period prior to T=10^-43 seconds have no relationship to the conclusions that we can reasonably draw from our observations, only with what our current mathematical models can handle.Bottom line: conclusions reached on the basis of observational evidence are not based upon faith, and mathematical models are only models, not reality. When a model stops working it doesn't mean reality stops existing and must be taken on faith.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling and clarity in last two para.

Imaginary time is a mathematical construct. Many fields of science use imaginary constructs that have no objective reality but nonetheless tell us useful things about the real world. Even something as simple as electrical engineering (compared to general relativity) takes advantage of the imaginary construct of the square root of minus one (imaginary numbers).To repeat, Cavediver isn't saying that mathematical constructs have objective reality, only that they are tools that provide useful answers about the real world. The breakdown of our mathematical models at T=10^-43 seconds is not "the beginning of time as we know it." I suppose you could call it the beginning of time for those particular mathematical models, but even though we can't model it and can't say much specific about it, the observational evidence tells us the universe was there and expanding before T=10^-43 seconds just as it was after.Just as you don't believe the bullet popped into existence when it first entered the frame of the video, cosmologists don't believe the universe popped into existence at the point in time where our models begin working. Your belief that the universe might have popped into existence at the exact time when these first primitive mathematical models of a race of biological creatures on a planet of a nondescript sun in the outer arm of a typical spiral galaxy break down has no evidential support and so could more accurately be called faith.--Percy

Its pretty clear you don't know what observational evidence is. How do you know "the speed the bullet was traveling" if you did not observe it? So of course you observed it, and you used this observational evidence to make reasonable inferences, such as that the bullet was fired from a gun.In the same way, cosmologists peer out into the universe and observe the motion of all the galaxies and project backward in time, just as you did with the bullet, and discover that at one time all the matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a very small, very dense, very hot region.We have models of the early universe that work very well, but they break down for times earlier than T=10^-43 seconds. That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it. No argument there, but we *can* see it. We just can't model it.--Percy

Let me address the end of your post first: This is a different question. Concerning whether the universe existed before T=0, I don't think we know, but this would be a better question for Son Goku or Cavediver. But please don't change the subject to theories about the T<0 universe. Whatever you say, but you're ignoring the point that you drew your conclusions based upon observational evidence, not assumptions. After I posted my message explaining this, Rahvin and Lyx2no posted messages explaining the exact same thing to you. You don't seem to understand what observational evidence is. Cosmologists conclude the universe existed before it came into their view just as you concluded the bullet existed before it came into your view. There's no faith involved in either conclusion.--Percy

ICANT, you seem to have lost track of what you were talking about. Please don't try to shift the focus to T=0, Hartle/Hawking or imaginary time.You claimed that we could only accept it on faith that the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 seconds.We pointed out that conclusions that the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 seconds stemmed from observational evidence, not faith.If you want to concede this point then we can move on to your next point, but please stop trying to change horses in mid-ride.--Percy

The part of the video that's significant and that we've been drawing attention to is when the bullet first appears at the left edge of the video. The question was, "Given only the evidence on the video, did the bullet exist before it can be seen?"The "hitting the target" part of the video should be ignored. It isn't part of the analogy. I couldn't find a video of only a bullet, all I could find were videos of bullets hitting things. The analogy is about whether things we can't see still exist, not the Big Bang.Maybe this video will work better for you. It's a compilation of meteors caught on video. It's not necessary to watch the whole thing unless you find it as fascinating as I did. You'll get the idea after the first few: So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."The reason this is the answer is that all our experience throughout all time says that things that exist continue to exist, or more precisely, that matter and energy don't just suddenly spring into existence or disappear.So did the meteor exist 5 minutes before it appeared on the video? 10 minutes before? 10 days before? 10 years before? 10 millennia before? 10 million years before?Your answer should be, "Yes, of course it existed, though of course things would have happened to it throughout time, most likely collisions, and there must have been a time at which the meteor actually formed and before which there was no meteor, but whatever changes the meteor itself might have experienced, most certainly the matter comprising that meteor always existed."The universe is now at T=4.3210¹⁷ seconds (13.7 billion years). We know it exists because we can look around and see it.Did the universe exist at T=10¹⁷ seconds (about 10 billion years ago)? Yes, of course, we can look out into the universe and see it as it was 10 billion years ago.Did the universe exist at T=10¹⁶ seconds (when it was only 316 million years old). Yes, of course. Though we don't have direct observational evidence, we can deduce that it existed from the later observational evidence. If the universe had actually begun at T=10¹⁶ seconds then we would see something much different when we look out into the heavens.Did the universe exist at T=10¹⁵ seconds (when it was only 31 million years old)? Yes, of course, for the same reasons.Did the universe exist at T=10¹⁴ seconds (when it was only 3.1 million years old)? Yes, of course, for the same reasons.Obviously we can carry this back and conclude that the universe existed at T=10¹³, T=10¹², and so forth, continuing on down to T=10^-5, T=10^-10 until we finally get to T=10^-43 seconds.The thing that no one can understand is why you think there's something special about T=10^-43 seconds. If the universe didn't exist before T=10^-43 seconds then it wouldn't be T=10^-43 seconds, it would be T=0.We do have a pretty good idea of what the universe was like at T=10^-43 seconds. It was an extremely hot, dense plasma of quarks, photons, etc. Prior to T=10^-43 seconds we do not have a good idea of the nature of the universe, because we don't have accurate models of what happens to the universe below the Planck scale (the very, very tiny scale).Clarifying a couple things now: That isn't representative of what Rahvin said, and you quoted him and showed how misrepresentative this is. Rahvin never gave an equivocal "maybe, maybe not" type of answer. While conceding the possibility that the universe didn't exist prior to T=10^-43, simply because nothing's impossible, he called it very unlikely. Did you have any direct observational evidence that the meteor existed prior to when you first saw it? 10 years before your first saw it? 20 years? Of course not. Do you believe it existed 10 and 20 years ago? Of course you do. That's because human beings understand beginning at about 5 months of age that objects not in view still exist.We can see the universe today and we can see it billions of years ago. And for the period before that, all our experience says that objects not in our direct view continue to exist. The evidence that the universe existed is as strong for T=10^-43 as it is for T=10^-42, for T=10^-41, for T=10^-40, and so forth. You're drawing an arbitrary line and saying before T=10^-43 seconds the universe did not exist, and that makes no sense. First, we're not talking about the universe appearing. That's not what happened at T=10^-43 seconds, that's what happened at T=0, and we're not talking about T=0. We're focusing on your claim that it can only be accepted on faith that the universe existed before T=10^-43 seconds. As has been explained, this is equivalent to believing that things we can't directly see don't exist.Second, I could explain why your analogy to abiogenesis is misconstrued, but let's stay focused on this topic. It makes no sense to muddy the waters with a poorly drawn analogy to yet another topic on which we disagree.--Percy

Let's not use the word "prove". Science doesn't deal in proofs. Do you believe the evidence supports, as at least one of the viable possibilities, that the meteor existed before it first came into view? We're not talking about Hartle/Hawking now, we weren't talking about Hartle/Hawking before, and everyone keeps telling you we're not talking about Hartle/Hawking. The only one who keeps introducing Hartle/Hawking is you, so why do you keep asking?As to whether we're talking about the standard Big Bang theory, no, we're not. Most cosmologists today accept inflation, which modifies the standard Big Bang theory to include a period of super-rapid expansion by a factor of about 10⁴³ between T=10^-35 and T=10^-32 seconds.But Hartle/Hawking or not, standard Big Bang or not, inflation or not, they're all irrelevant to the question of whether we have evidence supporting the existence of the universe prior to T=10^-43 seconds.--Percy

ICANT, please focus on the current sub-topic of the meteor and whether something exists before you first see it.The question was, do you believe the evidence supports the view that the meteor existed before it came into view?Where this discussion goes depends a great deal upon your answer. If you say no then while perhaps there will be a couple additional forays trying to convince you how ridiculous your position is, if you won't be convinced then you won't be convinced, and there's no point pursuing it. The goal here isn't to convince people with irrational viewpoints that they're wrong. The less rational the person the less effective evidence and rational argument will be. They weren't led to their position by such a path, so they certainly won't be led away from it by such a path.The real goal here at EvC Forum is to engage arguments and positions related to the creation/evolution controversy that are wrong but that lay people (like school board members) find effective. Your position is ludicrous on its face, and I would have no concern at all if I learned that you planned to address a school board meeting on the science curriculum and argue that things quite possibly don't exist before they're first seen.So if that's to be your position then that's fine, I won't spend much effort trying to talk you out of it. But as a moderator, and more importantly as webmaster, I take seriously this site's goal of not hosting nonsense discussions, so it is my responsibility that nonsense views like yours don't draw significantly on this site's resources.--Percy

That wasn't the question. About the meteor, the question was whether you believe that the first sighting of the meteor is evidence that it existed before that point in time. About the bullet, the question was whether you believe seeing the bullet enter the left side of the screen is evidence that it existed before that point in time.If you don't think seeing something is evidence that it existed before you saw it, then there's no point talking to you. No. I wasn't making any comment at all about the universe. Please stop acting like a troll.

---

AbE: I'm going to explain the painfully obvious of why you're behaving like a troll.Imagine that you and I are standing on a street corner. Gesturing across the intersection I say to you, "I've never seen that sign before, when did they put that up?"You reply, "That sign's always been there."And I respond, "You mean that when Columbus discovered America that sign was already there?"Which obviously you did not mean.Just as obviously, from context I was talking about the meteor and its immediate history, not making a comment intended to apply across eternity.Either you're aware of obvious contexts like this and are a troll and so shouldn't be allowed to participate, or you're oblivious to the obvious contexts and aren't qualified to participate.So stop saying things that can only be interpreted as meaning you're a troll or an idiot, because in neither case can you be permitted to continue contributing in this fashion. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you've been doing this for months.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add "AbE" comment.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.