questions about the origin of singularity = nothing

It's a good stalling tactic, but never ultimately satisfying :-) Exactly. I think this model should be understood before trying to looking at more esoteric theories. Once you've got the essence of no-boundary, it all becomes much more clear. If you can grasp that, you can grasp anything that string theory throws your way! There are very few pictures I have ever seen that are more satisfying than no-boundary in a closed FRW universe.

Truly pantheistic (and incorrect) thinking!

Huh? I can only assume you are objecting to my anthropomorphising of the universe... it's a literary technique used for effect and emphasis.Just in case you're objecting to the science, it's called General Relativity, and it's just the way it is... sorry.

The error of your method is that the human mind is not the origin of creation. We can imagine, however, so at best your scenario is an imaginary hypothesis. The universe can no more "think" than we can be eternal.

Where I did I suggest it was? We can do science, however, so at worst my scenario is a scientific hypothesis. I did not think I was implying either...

Does the no-boundary proposal require a closed universe as a starting assumption? I was under the impression that all the observational evidence pointed towards an open universe?PE

Yes, "no boundary" works with a closed universe. Observational evidence points to a flat universe, with W=1. If it is truly flat, then this is an infinite universe like the open universe. However, one of the benefits of inflation is that it explains this flatness as a product of the inflation. You can start with any value of W and inflation pushes it close to 1. So the universe is quite possibly closed. The observed acceleration does not change this. We are beyond the original three scenarios of the FRW universe now.

Confused. How can W < 1 in a Universe where the expansion is accelerating? Can W change with time (could we be undergoing another inflationary period)?PE

Sorry, I'm being a little loose with my definitions. I'm talking about W distinct from the accelerative factor (cosmological constant, quintessence, whatever). We can have a closed universe that has accelerative expansion... this is just like de Sitter space. And yes, this is like the inflationary period, just much much much less dramatic! Don't think of W changing, but whatever it is that is causing the expansion.

Thanks cavediver, I appreciate you taking the time out to answer these.That doesn't mean I understood you by the way, I always understood closed and Big Crunch to be pretty much synonymous. I guess you're telling me they aren't. What does a closed Universe mean in this context?Incidentally, doing a bit of digging on the web and I found this interview with Neil Turok (do you know him?): Part I
Part IIPart II discusses how Hawking and Turok came up with a no-boundary proposal for open universes. It posits something called an instanton, which contains a much "nicer" singularity than the traditional Big Bang singularity. According to the Cambridge Quantum Gravity site this should be testable in the next few years when MAX and the Planck Surveyor are launched. I'd never heard of any of this and I thought I was reasonably up to date.PE

Closed and big crunch are synonymous in a classic FRW universe, which is what we used to believe in (no cosmological constant, no quintessence) That is why you (and most of us) still put the two concepts together. But add a cosmological constant type device and everything changes...I'd forgotten the Turok thing. It post-dates my time in the field. I've only spoken with him a couple of times. Seemed a nice guy. He joined the department not long after I left. Don't worry, when you look at the number of papers published in this field, you only ever hear of a fraction of a percent of the stuff that goes on. Check out the daily lists of hep-th and gr-qc at xxx.lanl.gov.

The theory of relativity predicts an ABSOLUTE beginning. The first law of thermodynamics can not allow for such a beginning. Nevertheless, that there was a beginning is without question. Therefore a naturalistic cosmology is neither feasible nor logical. The only other alternative MUST by needs be supernatural. To stay within the bounds of both the theory of relativity and the first law of thermodynamics there MUST be an original cause. The only KNOWN logical explanation from history is in fact:Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Here we have an absolute beginning, WITH a supernatural CAUSE. It fits perfectly with ALL laws of thermodynamics and satisfies all the requirements of relativity.Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.Science in the Biblehttp://www.inplainsite.org/...ntific_facts_in_the_bible.htmlScience In the BibleSorry, I do not know how to use code to make active links.

I'm going to assume you mean the second law of thermodynamics, because the first law barely rules out anything.
(In fact the origin of the second law was the inadequacy of the first)The second law definitely allows for such a beginning and in no way contradicts relativity.
(In fact if you get into the issue of Weyl curvature they're supportive of each other)

That's right SG, start with the basics

SG has alreay covered this, but just to emphasise: thermodynamics is very much secondary to Relativity. In its usual guise it is merely a probablistic statement, applies locally, and has no application to considerations of the universe as a whole.When time is simply an internal aspect of the universe, the beginning of time does not imply a beginning of the universe. If the universe is created (and as a Christian I believe it is) then that creation not only involves the beginning of time, but its middle and end.