T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe

Every time there is a debate involving the creationist contingent regarding Big Bang theory and current cosmological models the entire focus ends up being on T=0 and even "T"http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.htmlI would also like to cover the concept of "T"<0 where "t" is some sort of "time" external to the universe, presumably relating a 'multiverse' or such. what are current speculations in this area and on they based?
string theory, branes, quantum fluctuations, relationship between particle physics cosmology, theories gravity etc.etc. do we actually know about these things? hypotheses have? experimental work going areas? wild wacky there based?what so special planck time why anything within frame initial universe mysterious different??i appreciate that none above necessarily relate currently established cosmological models. i speculation rather than tested evidence basis for much discussion such things. that's fine. as long it made clear "know", "think", "might be" "possibly could differentiate accordingly think topic be an interesting one all concerned.i creationists might learn something way science works terms differentiating empirically verified plausible (ever optimist!) well appreciation things not actually covered by the currently established BB theory.For the rest of us a foray into the bizzarre and speculative world of theoretical physics and an opportunity to see if we really have understood any of those popular science books on the subject.If nothing else I hope it will be new twist on a debate topic area that is becoming tired and bogged down here at EvC (in my opinion)Some input by resident cosmology experts would be very much appreciated.
Creationist thoughts are also welcome but lets take the expansion of the universe as an empirically tested given, avoid any biblical quotes and concentrate on your perceived problems with T=0 and "before".Let the speculation begin.................Topic area: Big Bang and Cosmology would seem the very obvious candidate.

Do you personally subscribe to any of these views?How do those who subscribe to the fourth option deal with the very obvious question of a universe of quantum proportions in it's very early state?

I have looked up simplexes and don't really understand how they are useful. Why is dividing the spacetime of the very early universe into 2D triangular chunks (which is my very basic, and quite possibly very wrong, understanding of the concept) considered to be a useful or valid thing to do?Also in more practical terms, how do current (or imminent) developments in particle physics (e.g. the Large Hadron Collider), CMB mapping and gravity wave detection relate to the various areas of research you have outlined? Do any of the theory areas you have mentioned make any specific predictions about any of these experimental projects and what they should find?
My understanding is that string theory in particular could potentially be 'verified' to some extent by the LHC 'exposing' the existence of some of the tiny curled up dimensions that this theory necessarily requires.
Is this true?

No. He means very tiny. I.e. of quantum proportions. Sizes of atomic scales. In this context it refers directly to then very early universe when it was incredibly small and our classical theories (i.e. non-quantum) of space and time break down. As I understand it the Higgs Boson is a predicted particle that relates to the mass of all other particles.
It is predicted by the 'standard model' which is comparable to the periodic table of elements in terms of concept. The standard model structures particles in terms of their various properties in much the same way that the periodic table does elements.
I also understand that the Higgs Boson is a candidate for Dark Matter but I don't know how widely that is believed.
The LHC certainly hopes to detect the Higgs Boson.Maybe someone with more knowledge can elaborate further?

Cavediver - What is it hoped the LHC will provide us with in terms of evidence for string theory or any of the other candidates for a theory of everything?
Also is the seemingly very simple idea of a zero energy universe produced as the result of a quantum fluctuation (linked to the OP) a viable candidate for the origin of the universe?Which theory, if any, regarding cosmological origins do you subscribe to and on what grounds?

I guess the difference is that we know the universe is here. There is no empiriacl evidence for God (if you want to debate this point take it to another thread - this debate site is full of them) Working out how the universe came to be here is the intersting part. The Big Bang is all but indisputable in terms of the evidence of the universe evolving to it's present state from a very hot, very small, very dense prior state. How that initial state might have occurred and/or what if anything is required for this to happen is the subject of this thread.
I don't think it is true to say science is happy to accept that the origin of the cosmos has been explained at all. A great deal of thought and research has gone into and continues to go into this very subject. The expansion of space and time itself requires no energy as I understand it. Whether the universe has any overall energy and "where" or how this could have come about are exactly the subject of this thread. But no scientist claims to know the answer to this question as yet. Energy behaves in ways that we understand. As for "transdimensional energy".... well I am not sure even you know what you mean by that.I don't think abandoning all forms of research and simply claiming that "transdimensional energy" is responsible for everything is going to progress our understanding of nature very much at all.There is a long history in science of the seemingly unexplainable being attributed to God. Some great scientists have fallen foul of this trap in times gone by and halted their research as a result(Newton is a good example). However in almost every case someone else has come along less willing to give up on the problem so easily and progressed humanities understanding of nature as a result.Maybe we can discover how the universe came to be. Maybe we cannot. But accepting the answer as God and not even investigating the question any further is guaranteed to get us nowhere.Welcome to EvC.

I didn't "pick" or "mess". In fact I quoted you in full and responded to each of your points individually in turn. This is a debate forum. This is the sort of thing people do here.Now I am goig to "pick" the relevant parts out of your latest post and respond to each in turn. Again - That is what we do here. There is at least the possibility of empirically testable conclusions as to "how". The "why" you refer to may or may not exist. There is no empirical reason to think there even is a "why" regarding the existence of the universe. Even if there is a "why" I am baffled as to how you think we might reliably investigate this? Yes, string theory is one such theory. I believe that this currently postulates 10 spatial dimensions. I have yet to see any reference to "transdimensional energy" though. Is this a common term or one that you thought up? On what do you base this belief?
In the "nothinness" of the vacuum we see quantum fluctuations. Particles spontaneously appearing and dissappearing. All of the time. This has been observed.
It is not at all clear that genuine "nothinness" is indeed the natural state of being in the way that seem to think is so obviously the case.How much energy might the universe "have" in total and what implications does this have for our theories of the physical origin of the universe we see today?This was the sort of loose premise of my OP in response to various creationist attacks on Big bang theory (which they perceive to be a theory of cosmological origins rather than one of cosmological evolution) regarding T=0, conservation of energy etc. etc.Am I right in thinking that you dispute BB theory on the basis of these sorts of issues?

Not necessarily a particle collider, but a vacuum as in no matter whatsoever. Just empty time and space. No not really. Time and space as we know them were obviously not in existence "before" the big bang so a vacuum as we know it would not have existed as time and space as we know them were not in existence.
I am not trying to play the 'Get out of jail free' card that you think I am. My definition is probably the same as yours. No time. No space (i.e. no dimensions). Definitely none of the matter that we observe as part of our universe now. Absolutely and utterly nothing in a way that the human mind is unlikely to be able to comprehend at all. The last sentance was a specific reply to Marcosll - But the basic premise is to question the assumption that nothingness is the natural state of things.
True, a vacuum in our universe is not a like for like representation of anything that existed "before" our universe. BUT it is the closest we can directly study and contrary to common sense it is teeming with particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence.I think this should at least cause us to question the assumption that "something" cannot spontaneously arise from true nothingness.I am asking you to question your assumptions about spontaneous existence. That's all. On what are your objections to this based and are they valid or not? That is what this thread is about.ICANT - What I am trying to do here is seperate the empirically tested and validated components of BB theory from the questions of T=0 that you and others are, frankly, far more interested in. Based on a wealth of empirical evidence there can be no real doubt that the Big Bang theory of cosmological evolution from a very hot, very dense, very small prior state is true.However - How the universe came to exist in that very small, very hot, very dense state to begin with is a perfectly valid question.
It is a question I have seen you ask numerous times. It is also the subject of much speculation, much research, much dispute and the subject of this thread.Science doesn't claim to know the answer but I am hoping that some of us might learn something about current scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe and on what they are based.
Some theories do indeed speculate that "something" was present "before" the BB. Theories of the multiverse for example. Other theories do not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is the the space between the matter (not "around" the matter as you seem to be implying) that expanded so matter was not concentrated for long. Also according to inflation theory the initial rate of expansion of the universe was absolutely enormous. Much much faster than the speed of light.Additionally the nature of gravity in the very early universe is a complete unknown as our current theories are just incapable of describing it. Thus the ongoing search for a quantum theory of gravity. The topology of the universe is another area of research. Current theories, as far as I understand them, suggest that the universe is akin to the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere. Like the surface of a sphere there is no center.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote boxesEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Agreed. But if particles of matter can pop into existence in "empty" spacetime (as we know they can) can spacetime pop into existence in "empty nothingness"?
I merely question the assumption that the natural state of things is genuine nothingness. On what basis is this assumption made? Indeed. I think your overriding search for answers to these sorts of "why questions" potentially clouds your judgement with regard to the "how" questions that we might have a chance at answering. Fair comment. The term theory is indeed all too often used interchangeably in science for both things that we are (all but) certain of and also things which are empirically untested areas of research. I agree it is very inconsistent. Especially in the more abstract areas of theoretical physics.
However not even the most enthusiastic proponent of string theory (for example) would claim it as empirically verified at all.
The potential validity of such theories (or hypotheses if you prefer) is based more on mathematical concepts. Whilst this approach to physics has worked incredibly successfully in the past (the work of both Einstein and Dirac for example) I don't think any physicist would dispute that until empirically verified by predicted results any theory of nature should be considered as "true". I think the problem here is that you are still thinking in terms of matter exploding. You are thinking of it like a tightly packed bag of ball bearings exploding out from the center and scattering the ball bearings everywhere.
It isn't like this. Think instead of the bag of ball bearings itself (I appreciate that this is not a perfect analogy) ballooning out and taking tne relatively stationary ball bearings with it as it expands. The space between the ball bearings is what increases. Not the speed of the ball bearings travelling in space. It certainly isn't as verified as the broader BB theory regarding the evolution of the universe.
But the findings of WMAP, COBE etc. are highly consistent with the predicted results of inflationary theory. I would say it is more than a hypothesis at this stage but testing is ongoing and continues. New CMB mapping projects are getting underway as I write. No No No. the particles are not moving in space faster than the speed of light. Space is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. The space between the particles is expanding. The particles themselves are not necessarily moving at all. The mathematical basis on which all our current theories are based breaks down. Space and time are of quantum proportions. But we have no quantum theory of space and time. Currently we just have no way of calculating what was happening at this stage of the universe's evolution. Well that is indeed the question.
But is the possibility of it exiting literally from nothing really zero? On what basis is that assumptio made? Common sense (which several areas of physics have taught us to be wary of) or something more reliable?
In the absence of anything is it the natural state of things to remain that way? If I understand your question correctly then I would say yes (although energy as oposed to mass might be a better term in this context). The question in the link of the OP is whether or not all of this energy is effectively equal and opposite to the gravitational potential energy of the universe. I.e. How much energy is there in the universe in total. Could it be 0?I was hoping someone with more knowledge than I would tell us if this is a viable sceientific propspect or not. The trouble with this is it does not make sense. You are standing IN the surface of the universe. There is no ON.

Boldening done by me. I don't think our inability to comprehend something is good enough reason to discount it as "impossible". An inability to believe something is even less of a reason to discount it.
Modern physics as a whole is barely comprehensible even to those who could be called experts but it's practical and predictive success is indisputable. A theory of cosmological origins is likely to follow suite.
Neither my nor your ability to comprehend or believe something will ultimately affect the truths of nature. Our comprehension and beliefs are irrelevant. Any argument based on those alone is no argument at all. Now this is an interesting one. The law of conservation of energy is derived from time symmetry. Put simply the laws of physics do not change with time. The total amount of energy in the universe does not change with time.
But in the absence of time (i.e "before" time is created as part of the BB)..........? If time does not exist does the conservation of energy apply?
Additionally in the very early universe (pre-planck time) we cannot say with any certainty that any of the laws of physics apply. Including energy conservation. We just do not know.Alternatively there is the zero energy universe hypothesis which would in fact overcome your objections. What do you personally make of a zero energy universe? There are highly speculative theories that suggest exactly these things. I must admit that I am surprised that you would be happy to accept these sorts of proposals. It is not strictly on topic but, briefly, how would you reconcile these things with your theistic beliefs? I have been wrestling with a rampant 2 year old all day and have not as yet read it but I definitely will. Apologies if the replies I have given without reading this have required you to repeat yourself. I really am interested to read the article and will do so. Hmmmmm. The power of the telescope is not an issue. To look "up" from the surface of the universe would involve looking "up" in a dimension that is not itself part of the universe. If the universe contains all the dimensions that there are then this would be impossible.
The usual comparisons with living in the 2D surface of a balloon (which I am sure you have heard before?) apply here.Maybe someone like Cavediver of Son Goku can explain better. I reiterate that I am far from an expert in such matters.

This is not the topic of this thread but I feel that this needs a brief response.I have never said intelligent design is impossible. Nor do I believe any of those on the the science or atheist side of the debate have ever done so. Deeply unlikely maybe. But impossible in this context requires a level of certainty only found via faith. A level of certainty that empirical evidence alone can never bring about. A level of certainty that no atheist I know would subscribe to.
I have never declared my objection to intelligent design or theism as based on my inability to believe or comprehend.
Any objections to such claims are based on the complete lack of objective and empirical evidence for such claims. In some cases there is even the existence of evidence that would seem contrary to such claims.Buz - Lets not hijack this thread with talk of whether there is evidence for a creator or not.This universe exists. What scientific theories are there as to how this universe originated and what issues and problems are there with these theories, is the issue at hand.If you think the standards of evidence between concepts in modern physics as compared to a creator based universe are biased and unfair then I suggest you start a thread that directly addreses that area. I would be happy to take part in such a thread (although I do currently have my hands full with the two threads I have started recently and the end of your BBUH thread.)

Do time and space need "something" else in which to exist? Why must we assume that they do? There my be viable objections but our inability to comprehend "nothingness" has really got nothing to do with it. I don't understand any of the above?
Before the BB there was no time as we know it. Time as we know it was created as part of the BB. As part of spacetime.
Are you proposing an alternative view? If so on what basis?
Hedge funds? And yet a zero energy universe, in principle if not currently in practise, is an empiricably testable conclusion.
Would it change your mind about anything if it was indeed verified that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero? OK. Well flat 2D creatures inside the surface of the balloon only capable of comprehending or looking in their two dimensions would be a better anology than ants that can look up. Yes. But in the case of mass in the universe there are also significant attractive forces betwen bodies that pull them together. Yes much like the surface of a sphere. Wherever you are appears to be the center.

This is effectively what I was saying too. I didn't say I wanted to change your mind. I just wondered if evidence against one of the main objections to BB theory (i.e. where did the energy come from? What about conservation of energy etc. etc.) were to be in place whether or not it would have any effect on your view? No problem? Buz got "tore all to pieces" because his model of the universe was obviously and intrinsically flawed. A schoolboy with a decent grasp of physics could have pointed this out to him. Buz had no comprehension at all of the physical processes he was either vying against or advocating.
He attempted to replace the theory of the Big Bang, which has one single instant that may or may not violate the first law of thermodynamics, with a model of the universe that violates the second law of thermodynamics contimually and eternally even as we write.
The lesson that should be learnt from that is that if you are going to challenge the conclusions of science based on science then at least understand the science involved. The "creation" of space and time in the Big Bang. So you are OK with the concept of eternity but not with "nothingness"? Can you really comprehend eternity? I mean really comprehend it? I don't think so and yet your argument of incomprehension used against nothingness does not apply. Why? How we choose to measure time is neither here nor there. Galaxies form in time. Planets form in time. Whether the Earth moves round the sun or not is immaterial to all but our arbitary methods of splitting time into units. Don't be daft. Who claimed that the universe would cease to exist if the Earth exploded? where on Earth did you ever hear anyone advocate that?However if time as we know it were not formed as one of the dimensions of the BB. There would indeed be no time as know it. Things were evolving in time (Galaxies, the universe) long before we came on the scene. Nobody would sanely claim otherwise. Well neither Leibniz nor Kant made the specific measurable predictions of Einstein's general relativty. This in itself suggests that their theories of time are inferior to those of GR. I place no importance on US at all in this context.
We are completely irrelevant.
The only person I have ever seen describe the fundamental concept of time as meaningless if seperated from the spin of the Earth or other humans forms of measurment is you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No he was not!!!! Buz's whole objection to BB was that the BB broke the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of previously non-existent energy. The whole premise of a zero energy universe is that energy is indeed conserved because the total energy of the universe is zero. Buz required God to be continually violoating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact in Buz's eternal universe there is no 2nd law of thermodynamics because God is eternally reversing entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs tells us that entropy will always increase in a closed system).
A one off "accident" that may or may not break one law of thermodynamics is hardly comparable with the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is effectively null and void because of the continual and ongoing activities of a creator.
Your understanding of thermodynamics obviously rivals Buz's in terms of complete and utter incomprehension. The BB marked time. We now measure it from the point of the BB. Our ability or otherwise to mark it as it progresses is irrelevant. I do not see your point? Yes I can describe nothingness too. The absence of space, time or matter. These are just words.
I still don't see how you can claim to comprehend eternity any more than you can comprehend nothingness. Both are humanly incomprehensible.
Do you know of anything that had no beginning?
Yet you accept this concept whilst not accepting something from nothing?
This is utterly inconsistent. In the absence of intelligence no measure of time is possible. That hardly stops time progressing. You are the one asserting that the measurment of time is anything other than an abstract human concept. Time will pogress and galaxies will form in time regardless of us (interesingly the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the increase of entropy is often claimed to be the source of the "arrow of time").Ultimately - Is not an assertion but an empirically verifiable fact. The verified predictions of general relativity all but prove otherwise. According to GR time is an intrinsic component of the universe.
If you want to demonstrate otherwise you need to at least match the predictive power of GR. Predicted results and verified conclusions. Time is an inherent component of the universe regardless of our ability to measure it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.