Can Physicists Rewrite the Origin Story of the Universe?

Some cosmologists are challenging the established narrative of how the universe began. The problem, they say, is no one’s listening.

During a 2015 conference on theoretical cosmology at Princeton University, Roger Penrose, a pioneer in the field of mathematical physics, was asked to speak on a panel about the origin of the universe. For decades, the leading theory had been that, during roughly the first trillionth of a trillionth of a nanosecond following the Big Bang, there was a single period of extremely rapid expansion, known as inflation, that formed the universe we observe today.

“I was pointing out major flaws with the theory of inflation. Nobody commented on that at all.”

When it was Penrose’s turn to speak, however, he wanted no part of that dogma. Instead, he reiterated his belief that the theory of inflation was false, and he proposed that the universe could instead be better described by an alternative theory, conformal cyclic cosmology, which posits that our universe continually alternates between periods of expansion and contraction. In Penrose’s formulation, the universe as we know it began not so much with a bang but with a bounce.

As Penrose recalls, few people in the audience seemed to pay him any attention, and those who did shot back with ridicule, murmuring their disbelief. “I was pointing out major flaws with the theory of inflation,” he says. “Nobody commented on that at all.” Inflation had secured such a strong foothold in the physics zeitgeist, it seemed, that even one of the world’s most accomplished theorists couldn’t chink its armor.

Today, Penrose and other physicists who seek to rewrite the narrative of how the universe began continue to face an uphill battle. To many of them, the dismissals and rejections feel more personal than scientific, driven by an academic job culture that penalizes risk taking. They worry that — for young professionals especially — the quest to unravel the deepest mysteries of the early universe will take a backseat to a far more mundane pursuit: career survival.


By many accounts, inflation is a hugely successful theory. Conceived nearly 40 years ago by Alan Guth, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), it provided some of the first plausible answers to longstanding riddles about the universe. It explained the so-called flatness problem (how the universe ended up just dense enough to keep from flying apart, but not so dense that it collapsed under its own gravity) and why the universe looks uniform instead of patchy. According to University of Oxford astrophysicist Jamie Farnes, “you can kind of think of inflation as smoothing out the universe in the same way that blowing up a balloon smooths out all the creases in the rubber.”

According to its critics, however, not everything about inflation is so smooth. In early 2017, physicists Abraham Loeb, Anna Ijjas, and Paul J. Steinhardt argued in Scientific American that proponents of inflation were essentially gaming the system: Whenever an astronomy observation disagreed with one of the theory’s predictions, theorists simply added new wrinkles to their models to make them fit the data. With every new wrinkle, the theory became more complicated and, in the eyes of Loeb and company, less plausible. “Inflation is such a flexible idea that any outcome is possible,” they wrote, concluding by calling it an “empty theory.”

A few months later, Guth and 32 other prominent physicists, including the late Stephen Hawking, published a rebuttal, defending inflation as a testable, evidence-based theory that had produced numerous successful predictions. But many critics weren’t convinced.


Love Undark? Sign up for our newsletter!


Among those critics is Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. In her view, a lot of people certainly want inflation to be the answer, and it’s gotten to the point where “people keep repeating statements that are obviously wrong.”

In Penrose’s formulation, the universe as we know it began not so much with a bang but with a bounce.

One example, she says, is the idea that inflation solves the flatness problem. Hossenfelder points out that there is no mathematical reason why the universe needs to be flat, so in a way, inflation is solving a problem that never existed. She says there are other explanations and that “the people who understand inflation know this perfectly well.” However, Hossenfelder says that doesn’t stop the “disturbing” pattern of promoting inflation, saying, “if you talk to them about it, they will admit that [this and other assertions] are wrong, but they keep repeating them anyway.”

But not every supporter of inflation is so philosophically entrenched. Xingang Chen, an early universe cosmologist at Harvard University, began his career at MIT working under Guth, the father of inflation himself. But lately, he’s begun to seriously explore the alternative theories. Among them are a class of cyclic universe theories — Big Bounce models, if you will — including the one that Penrose proposed at Princeton. Introduced in the 1950s, Big Bounce theories predate inflation and are championed today by prominent physicists like Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Another contender is string gas cosmology, proposed in the 1980s by cosmologists Robert Brandenberger and Cumrun Vafa, which attempts to explain the expansion of the primordial universe using the equations of string theory.

Ask Chen, and he’ll tell you those alternative theories aren’t perfect either. For one, they are more complicated and less elegant than inflation theory. And in physics, Occam’s razor — the idea that simpler answers are more likely to be correct — generally holds sway. Chen still believes that inflation is the most plausible theory of how the universe came to be. But at the same time, he recognizes that alternative theories like the Big Bounce and string gas models can explain all the same observations that inflation can. Strictly speaking, there’s nothing special about inflation.

And, yet, inflation reigns. On ArXiv, the leading repository for physics research papers, articles mentioning cosmological inflation outnumber those mentioning cyclic cosmology and string gas cosmology by approximately 14 to 1. A search of a National Science Foundation grants website finds that, of the roughly 2,000 projects actively funded under the agency’s physics and astronomy programs, three dozen mention cosmological inflation in their project descriptions. None mention string-gas or cyclic cosmology. (In an email, Keith Dienes, the NSF’s program director for theoretical astrophysics and cosmology, said the agency funds “a lot of string cosmology as well as ‘alternative cosmological theories,’” though three of the four examples he cited do not appear to have early universe cosmology as a primary focus.)

As Hossenfelder sees it, this ideological convergence around inflation is indicative of a culture that’s become overly risk-averse in its publishing, hiring, and funding practices. She’s critical of this because “you get a lot of people who start producing [inflation] models that really don’t help you with anything,” and they do it because “you can get it published.”

“It has become very politicized,” Hossenfelder contends. “This is particularly pronounced in the United States, where people are really worried about their funding.” The anxiety is evident, she says, in the way scientists talk about securing money for their research.

Penrose agrees. “The competition at the universities is horrendous,” he says. “You’ve got to get a job.” But, he adds, the people doing the hiring are the ones who believe in these fashionable ideas.

At the end of the day, Ijjas says, challenging the mainstream “shouldn’t be impossible — but it’s okay if it’s hard. Because it should be hard.”

Indeed, today’s theoretical physicists are fighting for crumbs from an increasingly shrinking pie. NSF program director Dienes says there’s one combined budget for theoretical particle physics, cosmology, and high-energy physics, approximately $13 million dollars a year, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the total allocation for research in mathematical and physical sciences. Only a fraction of that $13 million goes to theoretical cosmology.

Ijjas, a theoretical physicist at Princeton and one of the coauthors of the controversial 2017 Scientific American article, is one of a handful of young theorists who have won funding to study an alternative theory of the early universe. But her funding came from the privately-run Simons Foundation, and even then only after the ideas — pertaining to Big Bounce models — were mature enough to be supported with high-level computations.

Ijjas says that, as a young researcher, there has to be a balance between risk-taking and conservatism. At the end of the day, she says, challenging the mainstream “shouldn’t be impossible — but it’s okay if it’s hard. Because it should be hard.”


When Penrose thinks back to that 2015 conference at Princeton, he recalls that at the end of the panel, a colleague stood up to comment on the field of cosmology as a whole — where it was headed and what was left to learn. As Penrose remembers it, the moderator’s message was that “there’s nothing new,” and “we really know fairly well everything … There’s a few things we can look at, but we’ve got the general picture.” It was the projection of certainty in the statement that bothered Penrose, who continues to argue that inflation is “a hugely artificial theory” — and that the physics community doesn’t afford the space, professionally or personally, to explore alternative ideas.

Hossenfelder captures the sentiment in a thought experiment. “Imagine you would want to come up with an entirely new explanation for the physics of the early universe,” she says. “This would mean that you would have to sit down for like, say five years, you know, do a lot of thinking, do a lot of reading, do a lot of calculations, and in these five years, there would probably not be much coming out of this.”

And then comes the rub, because “if you tried to do this,” she says, “you would be unemployed after two years, and that’s the end of that.”


Jessica Romeo is a freelance science writer based in New York City. She is currently an editorial intern at Popular Science. Her work has appeared in Scholastic Science World, Scientific American, and Smithsonian Magazine.

Top visual: NASA
See What Others Are Saying

198 comments / Join the Discussion

    I find it disturbing when Science mirrors Religion,that is when alternative theories are treated as heresy.Surely the freedom to challenge any idea without ridicule and ad hominem attacks is the foundation of progress and enlightenment.

    Reply

    Two relevant quotes:
    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
    Max Planck

    “I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
    1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
    2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
    3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
    Douglas Adams

    An article about this phenomenon (in the context of climate change)
    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/26/did-douglas-adams-explain-the-roots-of-climate-change-denial-cleantech-backlash/

    Reply

    dear learned readers
    please excuse an uneducated Merchant banker to butt into a discussion based on theories, however as a Merchant banker ( big difference to sharks off Wall Street) must it not be in nature of humans to doubt everything and study every possible outcome?
    Or am I as uneducated reader mistaken, that we have to follow political norms and place blinkers on our thinking ?

    Reply

    Not sure if anyone else has said this yet, but this article seems to get Penrose’s CCC model completely wrong. Roger Penrose does not at all propose a contraction and Big Bounce. Quite the opposite. He proposes that the universe expands forever, and at some point all that is left is massless radiation. Massless particles travel at the speed of light, and so distances no longer have the same meaning when time more or less stops having meaning (not totally accurate description, but close enough). This sets the stage for the next cycle’s Big Bang. Google him and plenty of video interviews and lectures will come up that he gives that will tell you what CCC is in more detail.

    Reply

    Dear Dave C;

    Thank you! I’ve followed Penrose’ thoughts on CCC for many years now and it always heartens me to see others speak up for it, at least to explain it.

    Over all those years I have scoured the internet for learned critique of his theory but mostly I find ad hominem attacks focused on his age. I would love to see some actual, scientific criticism. The little I have found has been rebutted by Penrose and colleagues and then nothing. The dialogue never gets going.

    Reply

    Fine, it was created. Care to tell me how he/it/she/they made it at the smallest scale possible so I can finally have my god particle followed by a gravitation-ally challenged, friction free automobile? Think of it as god’s challenge to you. Guess you thought he was going to leave you bored in a world of Fluffer Nutter. When you’re done with that, how about letting me know how big this reality gets.

    Reply

    The problem started when human created the beginning which he or she was not part of and did not witness. They said it was created by God and they were not there! They said it was a big bang but they were not there. My own theory is simple – In the beginning something happened and it has not stopped happening since then. It has no end though many things that happened during this process could end but the process itself is not ending – Hence man that came with what happened had a beginning and surely will have an end….

    Reply

    What was it that explodes in the “Big Bang”? was it a star among trillions of stars? Why did it explode? Well, we know why stars explodes. They ran out of fuel. And a supernova accured There is no other explanation of the big bang. GOD did this?? Give me a break!

    Reply

    One of the root problems, as has been already identified here, lies with the explanation that the Cosmological Redshift (CR) is due to Doppler Shift. We have written a paper, explaining the detailed physical processes behind the emergence of frequency shift of light emitted by atoms, whether in a star’s corona or in a discharge tube in an earth-bound-laboratory, using only undergraduate-level math, supported by ample sketches. We have logically shown that, to preserve the laws of physics to be the same inside a discharge tube on earth, or inside the corona of a distant star, the CR simply cannot be due to Doppler Effect. It is some other linearly distant-dependent physical phenomenon other than the Doppler Effect.
    The redshift is happening while the star-light is propagating through the cosmic space after leaving the star. We are working on determining the alternative physical process that could be the strongest candidate for CR.
    The paper can be downloaded from:
    http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

    Click on the list with the number, “2013.2”, to download the desired paper.
    “Can one distinguish between Doppler shifts due to source-only and detector-only velocities?”
    Proc. SPIE 8832-49 (2013)
    Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri and Michael Ambroselli.

    Reply

    I want to throw something out there, that will certainly be dismissed by the scientific community
    without having a better answer:
    I have an explanation for a lot of the fundamental questions that are still open and unexplained.
    I hear that there is multiple times more mass in the universe than we can see.
    There is multiple times more energy that we can measure.
    What if this is where GOD comes in?
    He is in everything and everywhere.
    If GOD is in all this excess energy and mass, he would be able to create anything.
    This explains why everything is working so wonderfully together,
    because it was created by GOD who is bigger than any human understanding.

    Reply

    This idea is called GOTG—God of the gaps. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean we get to plug god in to fill the gap in our knowledge.

    Frankly, I thought of the god solution as a teenager. When I learned more, I moved on.

    Reply

    Your god is just a construct of the human mind, the most simplistic explanation for the puzzle. if she was a reality why would she not send a message along the lines of :” Listen up you idiots.Stop ruining what has been created.” That would remove doubt and concentrate minds. Simple. That hasnt happened because she is not a reality. And dont come back to me with that “you must have faith” rubbish. That is the greatest cop out of all time.

    Reply

    Ah, good point! As a very brief answer to your query (though a lot more Bible study would be needed to clarify the matter), there is Revelation 11:18, which in quite a few translations (See https://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/11-18-compare.html) speaks prophetically of the time that God will ‘destroy those who are destroying the earth.’ This is a warning to mankind, but also gives some reassurance that God is not going to let humans succeed in destroying the earth.

    I find it interesting that until today, mankind did not have the capability of literally destroying the earth, or–to speak of a lesser accomplishment–of destroying all life on earth, or even of exterminating humans. But now there are more and more people pointing out that very danger.

    Reply

    The truth is the truth. All science is a bunch of theories. E. G., The Big Bang “Theory”. (Notice how they always includ the word “theory” when you see this phase} Theories to be proven must be, most of all, OBSERVABLE then repeatable and finally, reproducible. Most of what “we” have been told and taught about the so called “universe” does not meet these basic requirements. For instance, the word “universe” refers to ONE = “uni” but then they say there are an infinite number of “universes”. WTF?

    All any one needs to do and know about cosmology and the creation of our “UNIverse” is documented in the first book of the bible, Genisis (The Beginning}. Everything written there is the THE TRUTH.

    Why all the LIES > To “hid” God, “our Father” who created us in his image making all of US :sons (and daughters} of God. How could they do this? The explanation is clrarly documented in this story. If “they: don’t go almg with it [ they DON’T get reaserce money from the government.

    Wake up people before its to late!

    Reply

    Some responses rush to plugin God , Brahma , intelligent design etc is nauseating. Physics is essentially about the physical not meta physical the discussion can proceed without all that

    Reply

    Really? Are you certain of that? And how do you know that is so? Because, to me, what you are positing as”fact”sounds like just yet another theory…

    Reply

    Quote from a prophet of god !” Oh the vainess and foolishness of man, for when they are learned they think they are wise!”

    Reply

    Consider for a moment: Mankind realizes during the course of their lives that there is a beginning and an end to everything. If the Universe had a beginning, then there would have had to be an end of something before it began and so on, over and over again; birth and death. Even if there were such a thing as a multiverse, where did each begin and what was before each of them? If you think of no end to something, or even no beginning to something it can rattle one to their very core and we draw or at least I draw a blank like a deer in the dark, frozen in the road by car headlights.

    It may be sometime, if ever that man will figure this puzzle out we call the Universe, we are as children among it, in the broad scheme of things, and even then it is a stretch indeed.

    Reply

    Indeed. Although a slightly closer simile might be more like a pimple on the backside of an atom, then raise that by a couple trillion degrees.

    Reply

    As per the discussions it is clear there is no right answer.
    I am willing to admit that the Universe was created by a Brahma, is maintained by a Vishnu and will be dissolved by a Rudra.
    That can answer all queries. Further the universe is just an illusion.
    Brahma is dreaming and we are all players in his dream!

    Reply

    Anyone who is interested in cosmology (which is no more or less a science than evolutionary theory, AGW or “climate change” theory, or other historical phenomena) – or, perhaps more to the point, the epistemology of science, should read The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion (2010), by astrophysicist and freethinker Hilton Ratcliffe.

    Ratcliffe traces the history of the Big Bang and cosmic inflation theory back to Nobelist astronomer Edwin Hubble, who first credibly observed and identified galaxies beyond our own in the 1920s , and came up with the idea, based on some 23 data points, that the red shift of distant galaxies might represent a visual version of the Doppler Effect, and be correlated with luminosity, and thus distance. Since there had been no evidenced based means of estimating the distance to these distant galaxies or the size of the universe, astronomers of the day pounced on Hubble’s suggestion and ran with it, jumping to the conclusion of cosmic inflation following a “big bang”, even as Hubble himself, based on further analysis and and data was definitively repudiating his original theory. So to begin with, there is no real evidence for the inflationary hypothesis, and Ratcliffe offers several examples from observational astronomy that falsify the inflationary hypothesis – evidence that has been pointedly ignored or rationalized by the self-interested defenders of orthodoxy.

    Ratcliffe’s book also examines in detail the other supposed pillar of the Big Bang theory and all of its ghostly and nonsensical corollaries – “dark matter” and offsetting “dark energy” that, despite the fact that these things constitute most of the known universe have still proved to be completely undetectable – namely “cosmic radiation”. Just as the red shift of distant objects observed across light years of populated space can be explained in many other ways than equating it with the Doppler Effect, so the background noise of our infinitesimal corner of the universe can be due to any number of causes besides being residual to a mythical Big Bang.

    Both of these pillars of the Big Bang theory are essentially naive projections of speculative theorizing instantiated by imposing convoluted mathematical modeling onto reality – a procedure comparable to the religious reification practiced by several other commenters here. Mathematics are attractive to certain dogmatic kinds of minds because (leaving Kurt Godel’s work aside) it is the one branch of human cognition where something like certainty and proof are obtainable. What too few people realize is that not even the simplest kinds of mathematics, not even 2+2 = 4, bear any necessary relationship to reality.

    Reply

    The problem with suggesting that redshift is caused by anything other than the Doppler Effect is this:

    Energized atoms of various elements emit very specific wavelengths of light, which have been measured and documented too many times to count. Those specific wavelengths of light never change — EXCEPT in the case of redshifted light from faraway galaxies. There are only two possible explanations for this:

    1) The laws of physics change very smoothly over large distances, causing the wavelengths of light emitted by energized atoms to also change very smoothly depending on how far away they are;
    2) The wavelengths of the emitted light were stretched as a result of being emitted by fast-moving atoms (i.e. the Doppler Effect).

    If #1 were true, then we would expect to see the wavelengths of emitted light change differently not only depending on distance, but also direction — after all, there’s no reason why the laws of physics would change smoothly AND EQUALLY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. But we don’t see the wavelengths of emitted light change depending on which part of the sky we look at — the diminishment of brightness and the redshifting of wavelength is uniform no matter where you look. It is extremely difficult to suggest a SIMPLE AND PLAUSIBLE explanation for this that doesn’t involve the Doppler Effect.

    Reply

    As a layman, I do not qualify to assert any real theories or calculations, and if there is a God, gods or higher power, I do not understand Him/it/them. I don’t think that we’re supposed to understand those forces, and it seems the harder people try to understand, the worse the whole situation gets.

    As far as the solar system we inhabit, and the galaxy that harbors our system, and the universe that extends beyond that, these questions have always fascinated me. I have a theory you can scoff at or laugh at if you like, but I kind of like it. The universe is so immense we can’t begin to comprehend the distances and energies involved, and it’s true that a human life span is terribly short, like a a tiny spark that winks for the tiniest moment and is gone in the grand scheme. However, there are answers out there for those who are able to achieve the resources to reach for them. So sad is the human condition that it is ruled by fear, money, greed & desire. We do indeed stand in our own way when it comes to exploration and the search for realities & operations of our world & universe.

    Anyway, I was thinking about stuff like I do, and was into black holes that evening. We know so little about them, and where all the energy, material & starfire they eat goes. Not even light can escape them, and correct me if I’m wrong but I think the idea of dark matter has been widely accepted as the glue that holds the universe together. I bet not even that escapes. There are many black holes in our universe, so many galaxies, so who’s to say that this universe is the only one. I was outside the box I guess.

    I mean, where does all that black hole fodder go? My idea is that other universes exist, and black holes are just as much a part of them as they are of ours. They are a common denominator, like dark matter, of all the universes or dimensions or whatnot. Our “big bang” was simply the material, etc., of a black hole being ejected out of a black hole’s ass end after it formed in one of those (billions?) other universes.

    These are formed through such incredible, incomprehensible processes that we have almost no idea what happens once the tiny, superdense star collapses in on itself. I think all that they eat is melted or changed or reformed into the raw materials of new stars, planets & galaxies. It burst out of the other universe’s black hole as it began churning it’s own light, stars and everything, space, time & reality. Cosmological time is way beyond our comprehension or understanding. We spit out the numbers to the nth powers like we knew the actual stretches of time involved. Black holes gobble so much, relatively fast, and it doesn’t just disappear.

    The raw materials of our universe burst out and began forming the stars & material we call our suns, galaxies and home. Our own black holes feed other universes, and other universe’s black holes to still more. Of course then we run into the age old question, “what came first the chicken or the egg?” because if this is an actual consideration then there had to be a first universe? A real primal big bang maybe an extraordinarily incomprehensible age in what we call the past. Space & time are also arguable ideas in their own right.

    So I like my theory, but any theory it probably comes with more questions than answers.

    Thanks for taking the time to read all that!

    Reply

    R.e.: The origin of the universe. (Some) people tend to think about how matter, energy, etcetera (“stuff”) could have originated out of “nothing,” and the Big Bang theory seems close to that and to have become the more accepted theory of our age. That seems to be close to the same concept as the sudden creation of the universe out of the void, which had previously been, and in some sectors still is, widely popular. The complete absence of anything/everything became plausible to our minds, especially once “zero” had been invented as a concept, I suppose. But nature abhors a vacuum. Why should either idea that something can, or cannot, come from nothing make sense to us; why is this concept of an original void so accepted and, even, popular? Where is there evidence of truly “nothing” in our actual experience? Outer Space used to be considered to be a vacuum, but not anymore. If our universe is constantly expanding, what is it expanding into? Is that possibly where nothing or the void exists (an oxymoron in itself, huh?!). I don’t see any reason why there should not always have been/be “stuff” in existence ad infinitum in both the past and in the future. No “beginning” and no “end.” There is plenty of fluctuation (change) though.

    Reply

    Oh yeah, and as for focusing our energy & work towards our own folly and toxic affects we have on our environment and our world, well we may as well accept the fact that we are not going to change as a society or as a species more specifically. The evidence is pure & undeniable, and if we do not change in a drastic way, such as reassessing our behavior, desires & place in the world, we will not survive.

    We are driven by greed, desire, comfort & gratification. I can make a difference, and you can make a difference. A city or even country can strive for real change and long term understanding. Unfortunately, too many are in denial, and too used to the comfort in which they wallow. They will do and behave as they please without care or regard for future generations, because they are not concerned with the future, as it applies to anything other than their own comfort or hoarding of treasure.

    We are a parasite; an outbreak of fleas on this earth, and eventually the earth will scratch at the itch we inflict, and we will be gone. Whether it takes a few hundred years or thousand, the end result will be that we will have erased ourselves from existence through our refusal to accept that we are not at all important in the grand scheme, and we have no divine exception or blessing to see us through our existence here. We are making our choices and we are embarrassing ourselves in the universal arena.

    We are destroying our chances of becoming anything other than dinosaurs. Nothing will change in the universe. Our earth will survive, regardless. We are only destroying ourselves. When we are gone, the earth will regenerate and recover from the annoying, selfish, hurtful little creatures we were. I do hope for the best; that we as a species, being as smart as we think we are, will realize what is important and what is simply ignorance when looking farther into the future that the ends of our own noses. Good luck. I do wish us the best. I hope we will be a part of the universal design in what is more than the blink of cosmological time. A million, or even a billion years down the line. I just don’t see that as possible if we can’t make it past ten or twenty thousand years without destroying ourselves.

    Reply

    Your idea concerning what might be happening to the material in dark holes had also occurred to me. It is fascinating, and I look forward to more cosmology experts perhaps considering something along that line. There is all that energy in the universe that is yet accounted for, for example. Can it have gone into the black holes? Perhaps this ties into your idea somehow. But I am also a layman–just one very much interested in astronomy and cosmology, so there may be some answers posted here regarding the question of whether or not such an explanation is within the realm of possibility.

    Reply

    i had seen the netflix special (it is an equinox episode): called “einstein’s biggest blunder” ; and, in it, the theory of VST was explained somewhat. john moffat originally had done alot of work on it; and the show had two later people João Magueijo , and Andreas J. Albrecht , mentioning concepts about the theory. João Magueijo had said that the variable speed of light in the early universe, solved the “horizon problem” . also, the theory renders the vacuum energy and lambda / the cosmological constant variable (i believe) which relate to the speed of light, and matter/energy being released by the “void” when things disperse to “emptyness” enough (ie: the spaces of the bootes void are less dense than space, and with continuous universe expansion, some zone should be “empty” enough to trigger another “big” bang). João Magueijo mentions that these would be continual, and i believe he may have implied, or i thought, that the “beginning” and “end”, or at least the beginning of it all, it maybe unknowable or infinite, paradoxically. i also was wondering about what lumps are still around in the old universes, if it works like that; or if the matter decayed by now.

    i was wondering though, that if the supposed big bang created space matter, did it of course create time; so there wasn’t time here before it. and that’s kind of funny in itself. so who knows what is the truth ? maybe these physicists can start pursuing multiple theories on the side, between times and at home; while publishing their “day job one”. that is lame. but also , if the universe has relationships to higher physical and temporal or also other dimensions; and if there are parallel ones and all sorts of “weird” stuff; than time and space seem to have been made in relation/relatively hahaha to other things; if we just popped up; or split off something else (like a bubble into 2 , is probably not accurate, i guess). i don’t know how stuff works either; but it reminds me of a quote i stumbled upon in aliester crowley’s “the book of lies” ; the book mentions howthe attempt will be made to explain things as they are; but that they inherently indescribable with words; but that a faithful as possible description will be given; but that it will come short, and so be a lie; and so, hence, the book is called, the book of lies :) . well i ran across a numinous description of something, or something; and it said something like; the planes, spheres, realms, and…. a bunch if other things mentioned as different connected things; and that is the relative quote that i wanted to mention. i don’t remember the quote; but you can search the pdf file for realm, sphere or plane.

    ok, thanks; that’s my post

    Reply

    Because the life span of the human species is infinitesimaly small compared to that of the cosmos, no picture of the entire cosmos is beyond speculation. Instead of concentrating on the cosmos we should concentrate on our species. Man must recognize how man made environmental changes affect us and all species including ours. Wasting brainpower and resources on cosmic questions and putting aside a deteriorating environment is human folly. To what end if mortals know all about the cosmos and nothing about the garbage and foul air that surrounds them? Socrates wife said to Socrates “Stop looking at the stars and focus on your path on Earth”.

    Reply

    Well put James. There is no need for humans to understand the origins of the Cosmos. Sure it’s interesting to think about the theories and to speculate on their differences but, in the end, what does it really matter? We have some of our world’s most talented and brilliant mathematicians looking at these theories to no pragmatic end when their brain-power could be put to so much better use in analysis and problem solving in the application towards mitigating this horrible mess that we humans have landed ourselves in. At this point, the earth is quite possibly in a death spiral of our own doing (undoing?). It is going to take courageous people to admit that this is in fact the truth. It is going to take very smart and very dedicated people to work, and begin work quickly to arrive at realistically executable solutions for global warming, global and domestic poverty, and the ever soiling of our planet.

    Reply

    Socrates was wise. He said, “The only thing I know, is that I know nothing”. When humanity accept this truth we might start to understand ourselves. Time to wake up, not become “Woke”, which is a false idea of self importance. Humanity is too puny to change anything in our Planet, let alone the billions of galaxies beyond the Solar System. Whether we survive or become extinct as a species is not ours to decide. Whoever created the environment where we all live (personally, I call that God) will make that decision for us. The rest is vanity or seeking to make a livelihood. Most science is a combination of both.

    Reply

    Hoping to get some bright academics to comment on the article. Why so much anti-relgious fanatics and religious fanatics? Both equally wrong. Fr. Lemaitre was only a few months removed from his death when the discovery of cosmic microwave background confirmed the big bang theory. He was deeply religious. (The religion that nutured modern science.) He was deeply scientific. Truth is truth: science generally tells us how, philosophy generally teaches us why. When the small percent on both fringes, clamoring their ignorant ahistorical lies about the role of human reason and faith control the conversation about theoretical science, knowledge loses. As a classic theist and scientist, I’m not afraid of anything modern science has tell us; I’m afraid of ignorance. Dogmatic belief in positivism or Biblicism are intellectually flawed and irrational views that create an imaginary philosophical void. At least half the comments I read were from these philosophical simpletons and yet we wonder why funding for the sciences is hard.

    Reply

    Totally agree: science should be in pursuit of the truth, and we should never be afraid of discovering truth as it will only enhance our understanding of God…

    Reply

    If the arc of the universe bends towards justice, to quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., then one can also propose that the universe is held together by Love.

    Ah yes, but this thing called “Love” cannot be measured by known science.

    As John Lennon once said, “All we need is love.” He was just a musician, not a physicist. Right?

    Reply

    Two things. Firstly, guys named Dave make a lot of interesting points. Secondly,look out the nearest window.What do you see? It got here some how. I want to know how.Even if I don’t like the answer. Or don’t get any funding to make me feel better at having been so wrong about everything.

    Reply

    So I know some of you don’t care about cosmology & physics but if you read this excerpt— completely disregarding the physics of expansion—- you will see that even the biggest brains with the most advanced calculating minds are vulnerable to succumbing to FAKE NEWS. Repeating it over & over because that’s the party line. God gave you all marvelous brains. Use your executive function to think FOR YOURSELVES. Whatever the topic, puzzle it out. You’re much smarter than you know. Braver than you feel. Don’t just swallow whatever they feed you. love mum

    Reply

    Every day numerous arrogant institutions of man set out to kill god, play god, create truth by decree and consensus, and dictate the approved narratives. Whenever the universe did begin, this flaw has existed in man since shortly thereafter. Maybe its our greatest trait. That we don’t accept our smallness. But its also pretty much the dead exact opposite of science or the search for truth. Science demands humility that most simply can’t summon. Science is wrong a million times more than it is ever right, or ever proves anything. But its very good at attracting every flawed, big mouthed idiot that wants to shove the-world-as-he-sees-it up your corn hole because his personal malfunctions are now somehow your burden. Science has become nothing more than politics with harder math. And every bit the disappointment.

    Reply

    Well – How can I ‘Close Down’ the Physics Community…? Proving that they Really DON’T HAVE A CLUE!

    Einstein said there were the 3 Dimensions that defined the Position of the Object in Motion, and 1 Dimension of Time, which defines how Fast the Object is Moving.

    And DAMN! All of a Sudden there is a 4 Dimensional Space… Look People a Dimension is a Measurement… Now replace the word, MEASUREMENT, everywhere the word DIMENSION is used…

    Then all of you will realize… A DIMENSION is NOT a DOORWAY! It is a Measurement!

    Reply

    Eugene Terrell – Measurements are metaphors all of which create doors because they are directional. If not, please describe the position and motion of an object consisting of a single spinning point.

    Reply

    I always had a question about the Big Bang theory and don’t know if someone have a simple answer to the following. If all the energy (now matter) burst-out in all directions from a single point and moving away from that point, would “point 0” where the Big Bang occurred be an expanding total void where there is no matter? Or from what i read today, is it better to think of the energy that came out of the Big Bang as a gas that field the universe equally?

    Reply

    I always had a question about the Big Bang theory and don’t know if someone have a simple answer to the following. If all the energy (now matter) burst-out in all directions from a single point and moving away from that point, would “point 0” where the Big Bang occurred be an expanding total void where there is no matter? Or from what i read today, is it better to think of the energy that came out of the Big Bang as a gas that field the universe equally?

    That is a REALLY good question – and I appreciate your mind. :)

    Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer. I have learned about certain pieces though that might contribute to the answer – or make up some of the answer.

    I also have to say that I am not a physicist, and it’s VERY possible that what I am saying now is not 100% accurate or it’s an oversimplification. The reason I am even posting is because I think your question is a good one and deserves attention.

    So here are some things that I “think” are factors:

    1.) Stars make other elements as by products and eject them out. So planets, etc… are formed from those byproducts.

    2.) Entropy – This would (at least to me) suggest that “point 0” would be “occupied” by something eventually as the system becomes more disordered.

    That is what I got. Again – HUGE disclaimer – this is not my area – and I am not really certain about much.

    I would really appreciate it if someone knowledgeable gave this question some mind-share.

    Reply

    The balloon is just a metaphor. In that situation, the universe is the skin of the balloon, so there’s no empty void anywhere.

    If that’s still hard to understand, imagine instead a tightly packed sponge ball in your hand. When you let it go, POOF, it expands in all directions, and there’s still no empty space in the middle.

    Reply

    The Big Bang is space expanding rather than matter exploding. Take a piece of rubber band, unstretched, lying flat on a surface. Mark it with several dots along its length, including one in the center. Then, stretch it to simulate the big bang and expansion of the universe(in one space dimension). There will still be a dot in the center at the so called origin of expansion, but every point on the band gets further from every other point.

    Reply

    Ok, thanks everyone for all your replies! i “think” i understand better. The energy has always been there in most theories but the Big Bang uncompressed it as more space was available and allowed it to became matter? And if the Balloon theory is true, re-compressing the matter and space will transform the matter back to energy?

    Reply

    The lack of traction here seems to be the description, bounce. Bounce sounds like a perceived occurrence within the Big Bang. Who’s to say it doesn’t do both, 1) achieve a singularity and 2) a secondary singularity explodes/expands first, adding enough energy to the other singularity(ies) causing successive expansion. I don’t perceive that either hypothesis disproves the other.

    Reply

    Only $13 Million for theoretical particle physics, cosmology, AND high-energy physics?

    Bill Gates, how about supporting these endeavors with just .!% of your savings account? Pretty please??

    Reply

    That $13 million figure also blew my mind. Only $13 million? Really? That is a national disgrace and should be a crime also. Another indicatoion that citizens who can think are not what is wanted.

    Reply

    In other words, our current budget could fund study in all of those disciplines for 115 YEARS for the same cost as ONE stealth bomber. Think about THAT for a minute… We seriously need to reexamine our priorities as a species, if we ever hope to even begin to scratch the surface of our potential.

    Reply

    These thoughts on gravity,the beginning and end of matter and time and infinity are the questions I recall asking myself in the crib while looking up at my rotating wheel of little animals.When I entered school the school made me stupid and distracted from what matters.

    Reply

    No. (That’s the answer to the article’s title!) The problem IS no one’s listening. Also, it’s the THEORY of evolution. Darwin even admitted that in his writings. Why do we not see anything in the process of evolving? Hmmmmm.

    Reply

    Viruses, bacteria.. we’ve seen lots of things evolve. It takes longer for multicellular organisms.

    And the word “theory” means something specific in science, different from (but somewhat related to) the way it’s used in everyday conversation. Kinda like how “match” means different (but related) things to a boxer and a fingerprint specialist.

    Reply

    I attended Penrose’s talk on conformal cyclic cosmology at San Francisco State University several years ago. He stated that in order for CCC to work, all electrons in the universe must eventually decay. However, there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence that electrons decay. I still admire the man for his past accomplishments, though.

    Reply

    The problem with faith based beliefs is an absence of logic — at least as to the faith with which I am most familiar.

    Any all knowing and all powerful Creator would know precisely what it created and know all that would ever occur in all the lives of all its creations … and if it wanted something different to occur, it would have created something different and different circumstances. That, to me, logically precludes “free will” and makes predestination inevitable.

    Reply

    The Creator’s foreknowledge in no way precludes free will. Just because He knows what choices you will make that in no way means that He has forced you into that decision. The decision is still yours.

    Reply

    There is no problem with Faith. Its what Faith means. Man has lost their fear of God. Well, I say many have. When He gets tired of all who think they have all the answers. Believe me, He will let you know what the real answer is and there will be many. many who will bow down to Him, but too late. Faith is seeing and believing. God has giving us a free will. That is who He is. Not some dictator. He laughs at man’s wisdom because God is the One who has giving it to us. I have witnessed many things in my life and am now pretty old. One might say, “well, I can believe what I want, that doesn’t make it right”. The real problem is that many look for the answers in the wrong place. Look around you. If one doesn’t want to read His Word which has survived since the beginning and all that was written is coming to pass then you can choose which way you want to go. Seek the right Holy Spirit and He will provide you with the answers that are sufficient for our minute minds.

    Reply

    Perhaps at least a part of the problem is that the one “big bang” theory better fits the common one god / one almighty creator of all that exists theory which continues to have a lot of followers because the true believers can both assert that they accept science and cling to their religious beliefs by concluding that their all knowing and all powerful ever present deity created that big bang — that the one big bang was creation.

    Reply

    Mankind cannot accept that the universe may be inexplicable to the human mind, therefore there must be a physical answer, since we exist in the physical realm, (most likely). But, just imagine, suppose it’s from infinity to infinity, kind of like our national debt!

    Reply

    The whole “big bang theory” is based on the red shift of distant galaxies. The idea being red shift equals acceleration, like a train whistle changing frequency as the train passes. The further the galaxy, the redder the shift, so the faster it is going. A more plausible explanation is looking at a sunset. The sun is redder because there is more stuff (dust, atmosphere) in the way. Think of interstellar dust, the further the galaxy, the more dust, so the redder the image. The simpler the explanation, the more true it is likely to be. The universe is static.
    The rest of the theory is just junk trying to explain how everything could fit on the head of a pin, and how the universe expanded from that.
    The theory falls completely apart when one examines the thought that the redness is based upon distance from us. Did we not debunk the thought that we are the center of the universe a long time ago? Time to put this idiocy to rest.

    Reply

    It is not distance from us exactly. It is distance from an observer, wherever in the universe an observer happens to be. In other words it is what one can observe from any point at all in the universe. So looking at it from Earth does not mean that the theory regards Earth as the centre of the universe, any more than any other place in the universe is the centre.

    Reply

    Look,… let’s not waste time on Big Bang theory anymore folks … just focus on Gang Bang theory…. :)) … Evidently, that would be a more tangible approach to discovering nature :))
    I mean no disrespect but overtime.. most of these hypothesis had been proven wrong and we and our children have been misled in schools on so many occasions to believe there was a Big Bang theory…

    Reply

    Many prominent cosmologists and leading physicists weighed in on this issue.

    I don’t see either Dr. Sheldon Cooper or Dr. Leonard Hofstadter commenting. (sorry, couldn’t resist)

    Reply

    Personally, I lean toward the faith-based models, but for the specific reason that it is possible to actually know God, and be in communication with him. I myself have this honor, and through acceptance of the Lordship and salvation from sin that he offers through Jesus Christ, anyone else can as well. As for the science, I’m afraid I’ll have to defer to those who have done far more study than I. But just thought I’d throw that out there.

    Reply

    The concept of (open) set is the most general concept of all. Continuity is really only about open sets. Since topology is the study of continuity, it makes sense to only care about open sets and not metrics. The idea of focusing on the intersection of all the open sets containing a given point, or a given set is crucial. There are 3 axioms on open sets that were formulated by Alexandrov in 1937:

    http://www.mathnet.ru/links/4bbe

    The foundation of Alexandrov topology is comprised of these 3 simple axioms:

    Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open.

    Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open.

    Axiom #3: Any finite intersection of open sets is open.

    A a topological space is a set X together with a collection of subsets that satisfy three axioms. Here we’re looking at a set with three elements, a, b and c. Let’s list its elements like this: X={a,b,c}

    What’s the deal with the circles/ovals? They’re telling us what the open sets are! A subset is open if it has a circle/oval around it OR if it’s the empty set. (It’s hard to draw the empty set.) This means there are a total of four open sets.

    Notice the set on the far right is X itself! Let’s clean up the notation and use curly brackets instead of ovals.

    Now we just have to check that the three axioms hold. Let’s do this one at a time.

    Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open.

    This one is quick to check. Are X={a,b,c} and ∅ in our list of open sets? YES. Therefore Axiom #1 holds. Done and done.

    Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open.

    To check this, we should form all possible unions of the four open sets, and verify that the result is a set in the list above. For example, is {a}∪{a,b} an open set? YES! It equals {a,b} which is in the list above. It turns out that’s the only thing we really have to check. Other unions involve X and ∅. But checking those is easy because of the following facts:

    Conclusion? Axiom #2 is satisfied.

    Axiom #3: any finite intersection of open sets is open.

    To check this, we should form all possible intersections of the four open sets, and verify that the result is a set in the list. For example, is {a} ∩ {a,b} an open set? YES! It equals {a} which is in the list above.

    Again, it turns out that’s the only thing we really need to check because of the following helpful facts:

    So Axiom #3 is satisfied.

    (By the way, the word “finite” in Axiom #3 is redundant in this example because we only have 4 open sets to check. “Finiteness” plays a bigger role when you have infinitely many open sets to deal with.) Thus all three axioms are satisfied, therefore the collection of open sets does form a topology on X. This means that the set {a,b,c} – together with the four open sets – form a topological space.

    It is possible to define many different topologies on the same set. In the example above, we investigated just one, but it turns out there are 28 more we could have considered! In other words, there are 29 different ways to define a topology on a set with three elements. Nine of them are shown below.

    ‍Nine topologies on a 3-point set. (Image from Topology by J. Munkres)

    There are two different types of singularities as far as far as Aristotelian ‘substance’ is concerned. One is purely topological, while the other is physical/geometrical. The existence of the physical singularity is guaranteed by the Penrose-Hawking theorems. According to this theory, curvature tensors associated with the metric diverge to infinity, as does the mass-energy density. But the background structure of space (think of space as another category of Aristotelian ‘substance’) maintains its integrity as A-topology manifold even at the (topological) singular point. The universe (the “world”) substance stems from the physical singularity from which both geometry and Aristotelian logic emerged as properties. What about time? Time either do not exist, or it was created in the Big Bang, or it has existed forever. If we assume that “time” has existed forever [its realism-ness derived from the Aristotel’s essence, lat. “esse”; Essence per se ( Ipsum Esse) is the most perfect of all: it is related to everything as reality. I.e. nothing can have (its) realism-ness except if it IS: thus essence itself is realism-ness of all realities, including determinants of all realities (ipsarum formarum). (T. Akvinski, S. th. I, 4, 1 ad 3). ], the evolution of the cosmos must be symmetric in time so that the behavior of the universe before the Big Bang is nearly a mirror image of its behavior after. Until 14 billion years ago, the universe was contracting. It reached a minimum size at the Big Bang (which we call t = 0) and has been expanding ever since. This Big Bang singularity is physical. To understand the difference between the two, think of physical singularity as a dot and topological singularity as a point.Recall that the forward direction of time is determined by the movement of order to disorder. Thus the future points away from the Big Bang in two directions. A person living in the contracting phase of the universe sees the Big Bang in her past, just as we do. When she dies, the universe is larger than when she was born, just as it will be for us. Why we can remember the past but not the future is ultimately related to conditions at the Big Bang.

    In the past few years, physicists have discovered that string theory predicts not a unique universe but a huge number of possible universes with different properties. It has been estimated that the “string landscape” contains 10^500 different possible universes (this is the total number of all possible options in the world no matter how minuscule they are). For all practical purposes, that number is infinite. But in that vast number of universes, only our universe (and maybe handful of others, but for all practical purposes, only our universe) is perfect. This stems from the two theorems of general topology, which is another theoretical framework that explains multiverse:

    Theorem 1: In the class of generally ordered (topological) spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only real generalization of perfectness.

    Theorem 2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule.

    The point of minimum size and maximum order of the universe might not have been the Big Bang of our universe but the Big Bang of another universe, some kind of grand abstract universe (“proto-universe”). This abstract universe is tied to the topological singularity. Our universe, and possibly an infinite number of universes, could have been spawned from this parent universe, and each of the universes could have its own Big Bang. The process of spawning new universes from a parent universe is called eternal inflation. The idea was developed by quantum cosmologists in the early 1980s. In brief, an unusual energy field (but one permitted by physics) in the protouniverse acts like antigravity and causes exponentially fast expansion. This unusual energy field has different strengths in different regions of space. Each such region expands to cosmic proportions, and the energy field becomes ordinary matter, forming a new universe that is closed off and completely out of contact with the protouniverse that sired it.

    Reply

    So, the inflation theory occupies a similar academic space as man-made climate change, in that you risk your career if you question that dogma.

    Separately, the roots of early religious upbringing in the researchers themselves are clearly affecting their models of the universe quoted here. We need to get outside of our own heads. Unfortunately, we may also need to be outside our own universe to provide ourselves a point of view to understand it. Otherwise, we remain just another 3D projection of 2D reality, like the rest of this place. Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

    Reply

    Big bang LOL, you can’t get something from nothing. Put 2 nothings together and you get nothing.

    Reply

    What is “nothing”? Have we observed the existence of “nothing” prior to cosmic inflation? Do we observe “nothing” now? Nothing literally means “not anything,” and by its nature, nothing has no properties. Yet, space does have properties.

    Reply

    The problem is your relative view of nothing is skewed since nothing as we think it, obviously exists. The Big Bang, hypothetically, is derived from compressed mass.

    Reply

    Calculating for Time Dilation observed by discrete particles, we find that Light cannot exist as discrete particles. If v = c then the observed time of Light is 0…and 0/x = infinite. Einstein must have visualized this, and later tried to rationalize it…even considering the seemingly archaic concepts of the ‘Aether’ that fomented the Lorentz transforms to begin with.

    Relativity is merely the combination of Maxwell’s and Lorentz’ work, plus inclusion of dynamic time. Maxwell and Lorentz both were describing the Aether and the matter mediated through it. The Aether, very literally, unifies through infinitum.

    The Aether identifies as a Supreme Being, welcoming all that there is into It’s bosom. This is intolerable to the traditionally atheist modern Scientist.

    Reply

    The duality of light as both particle and wave is not an either or proposition. it is both simultaneously. Photons have mass and charge that emanate as waves of different electromagnetic frequencies as determined by the source. This duality has been captured as images by researchers with photon scale resolution. https://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever/
    The mathematical theorists need to catch up with what we already know from direct observation and measurement.

    Reply

    Reread this article, but replace the concept of Inflation with Man Made Global Warming

    Reply

    this is nothing like global warming research (unlike some views)…
    for one, there’s no corporate advocates for one view or another…If there was any scientist that could create a counter case to global warming I’m sure the oil/coal industries would love to fund that research with just an incredibly tiny bit of their profits that would put actual government funding to shame…the oil/coal industries can rent some scientists to poke, but they don’t have anything to knock global warming theory down…

    as per article “combined budget for theoretical particle physics, cosmology, and high-energy physics, approximately $13 million dollars a year, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the total allocation for research in mathematical and physical sciences.”…

    that’s a rounding error for Exxon/Mobil…”U.S. oil and gas company ExxonMobil was ranked fifth that year, with a total 2018 revenue of some 275.5 billion U.S. dollars. Global top oil and gas companies”

    And there are governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia, USA?) that would also love to disprove global warming

    Reply

    the funding problems, and lack of thought diversity is exactly the same problem those that disagree with man-made global warming have….if you disagree, and try to get funding/published you may very well lose your job. Especially if you point out the manipulated data sets.

    science is about questioning and proving….the whole scientific funding process is off base and needs fixing….questioning should reign, instead of group think.

    Reply

    Wow, not a scientist, but just want to remark that I was struck by the similarities between Galileo and the Church of 1630, and today’s political correctness, group think, and funding, that as trickled into scientific research communities. Galileo recanted and ended his days as a prisoner. It sounds to me that dissenting voices to the norm have locked up their own thinking, or abdicated their efforts into novel research as futile. I suppose the one to offer a challenge to the ‘normative thinking today’ will be AI, which at the very least will be a hopeful step forward.

    Reply

    The origins of the universe are best described by Jesus, the Christ, in a new series of letters and articles which came thru a channel about 20 yrs. ago, and can be read at this site……….. https://christhasreturned.weebly.com

    Reply

    Charlie I hate to break it to you but Joseph and Mary did not name their son Jesus. They named him Joshua. Jesus is the Greek translation for the Hebrew name Joshua. The Christian version of the Bible leaves out eighteen years of supposedly the greatest being to walk the earth. From the age of twelve to thirty nothing is written about him. He just shows up one day with a following, his Apostles. The Apostles were Greeks. They called him Jesus. Since Hebrew is the language of the Jews with God it makes no sense for God to send an angel to tell Mary the big news and speak to her in a language she would not understand.

    Reply

    Sir, I don’t know where these folks who say Christ has already returned get their theology from. My Bible (that’s The Holy Bible) says the Church will first be raptured before He returns, and The Church, of which myself and other saints I know of today, is still here. Before Christ returns to earth, there’s the Tribulation Period of seven years that has to happen, along with the rise of the Anti-Christ, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Trumpets and Armageddon, just to mention the highlights. Those events have not yet happened, for you and all of those left after the rapture will see that what is occurring now in the world is a piece of cake, compared to what will happen then. When Christ returns, Satan will be bound for 1,000 years, and it’s quite obvious that the Prince of the Earth and his minions are still doing their thing. When Christ returns for His millennial reign, He will establish a world-wide government that’s vastly different from any government that has ever been, one that is just and pure; surely you must agree that there is certainly not even one like that in the world today, much less a whole world government, especially one such as that. (We’ll not get into what happens after Christ’s 1000-year reign, but everything will be brand new and good.) There will be many false prophets during the 7-year tribulation period before He returns, but we don’t have to wait for the tribulation to get here for that to occur, for there are a lot in the world of today, as evidenced by these folks who claim my Lord God has already returned. Don’t believe them, Charlie. Read the real Holy Bible, go to a church who preaches Christ and the Word of God, seek out disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ. Check out gotquestions.org. If you know the Truth-the real Truth that comes from the authority of God Himself, it will truly set you free. I promise.

    Reply

    Funny. This sounds remarkably like what scientists who go against the preferred narrative on “man-made climate change” are forced to endure. They get ignored, or called every name in the book, suffer similar dynamics of career suicide or being ostracized. I don’t know whether Penrose has a legitimate case or not, but he should have the same ability to go against the political grain as the climate scientists who call the climate hysteria out for being a fraud. Remember, the “97%” figure that is accepted with regard to climate scientists believing in the hysteria was achieved by literally dismissing 90% of the scientific studies that didn’t meet the agenda, because they presented evidence without pushing an cause either direction. Had all those been taken into account, it would have shown that about 1-2% of the total are convinced that man is responsible. It’s all in how you play the game. Good luck to Penrose. It’s hard to fight all the money and self-preservation that must be overcome, whether or not you have the truth on your side.

    Reply

    You need to spend some time in Europe & be a part of the scientific community: those scientists who want to challenge the man-made concept of climate change find it – unlike others who refuse to embrace the norms in their field – extremely EASY to get funding from big American corporations. Your comparison is faulty & you just showed the same SAD OPINIATED ATTITUDE that the article condemns…

    Reply

    As a non physicist, I imagine that evolutionary processes allow an infinitesimal window through which only patterns relevant to survival and reproduction are detected. Anything more would be overwhelming and incomprehensible. The limitations of our sensory and cognitive systems are honed to filter out reality. The drive to find meaningful patterns in the chaos is simply a basic survival mechanism redirected.

    Reply

    Newton’s theory of gravitation is science because all agree. Cosmic theory is speculation because all do not agree.

    Reply

    Science is not an answer but a process. It does not matter who agrees with what at a given point in time. Objective reality is not dependent our our assent. It is true not matter what. What changes is our grasp and understanding of it.

    So, there is no given theory of set of answers that is absolutely immutably correct. What we assert as theories are our best guess based on our current understanding. And the process of science requires us to always be open to reinterpretation based on newly emerged evidence.

    Reply

    It is essential to remember Newtonian physics is also incomplete; wong to be precise. Nevertheless in limiting circumstances the theory yields correct answers. So the underlying assumptions upon which the theory is built should be stated up front, neither buried in fine print nor outright neglected. Is the reason inflation theory is elegant because it is also based upon an incomplete understanding? Like Einsteinian physics, does a Big Bounce theory converge with the inflation theory when assumptions are all equal?

    Reply

    I’m surprised this article did not mention the works published by Guth, Sher and Bludman in 1983 and 1984. They demonstrated the impossibility of a bouncing universe based on the surprising results of their determination of the the universe’s mechanical efficiency. Unless the mechanical efficiency is 1% or greater, the system does not have the capacity to convert kinetic energy through a singularity back into kinetic energy.

    They found the mechanical efficiency of the universe is less than one one-hundred-millionth of one percent.

    Reply

    my difficulty with the expansion of the universe is the use of supernovae as standard candles. This depends strictly on their uniform brightness which depends on the theory of how they occur (matter being siphoned onto a white dwarf until it reaches the Chandrasekhar limit). But more recent work suggests several other possible mechanisms to produce such a supernova, like two white dwarfs colliding. These would not be of the assumed standard brightness. So if the standard candle is not in fact standard, the equation linking distance to brightness to redshift comes into question.
    Also, the argument runs that supernovae past a certain distance are dimmer than they “ought to be” so must be moving away faster. Distance at such levels is measured only by redshift. We already know how fast they are moving away, that’s WHAT REDSHIFT MEASURES! They are moving away faster than expected given how fast they are moving away? Utter nonsense.

    Reply

    This does not imply an inconsistency. A supernova caused by two colliding white dwarfs will have a very different spectrum than the 1a’s used as standard candles. No one would think of assigning a luminosity in the 1a range to it. There are numerous types of supernovae, distinguishable by visible evidence. The addition of colliding white dwarfs doesn’t change the nature of type 1a’s.

    Reply

    Albert did great thing with e=mc2. Then He started believing his own b s. All theory “proven dogma”

    Time and the absence of time is the missing cog.

    Reply

    E=MC^2 matches physical reality. It has been empirically proven many times over by thousands of scientists over the last century. If it did not match reality atomic bombs would not work.

    Reply

    Agree with you Catbird. If Time is primary and limiting then we have our “vessel” and descriptions of the Universe as a purely physical domain becomes moot.

    There are dissenters like Lee Smolin. His book, “Time Reborn” is pretty good.

    Reply

    I am not educated enough or smart enough to understand all this stuff. But I nay be able to understand the mathematical argument of “first cause”. Something can’t come from nothing. Yet something has had to always exist… without beginning or end. That something, therefore, created all that is outside of the creator. The creation would be with cause because a causeless creation is not logical or any purpose. The most probable cause and purpose for the creation would be love. And logic supposes that it took all the mass of the universe to bring the balance and majesty needed to make our solar system and planet to make a safe –but temporary– place to work out His plan of redemption. What has a beginning logically must have an ending. So Earth as we know it must pass away and a New Earth that is eternal will replace it. NOPE! I don’t understand that along with women and a thousand other things. And what I offered is shallow and can be picked to peaces. It is more of a faith statement than anything else.

    My interest in the sciences is not scientifical but comes out of my love for my Creator and Husband, King, and redeemer of my eternal soul.

    Reply

    Very pretty beliefs and looked good in that free book in my last hotel room. How-ever a very unoriginal plot borrowing from ALL of the other religions at the time of it’s writing hundreds of years after the supposed fact. Jules Verne predicted specific technological marvels a hundred years before they existed far more concisely than the vague prophecies you mention in the Christian scriptures (which were actually NOT written by the people they were named after.) Has he been recognized by the church as a profit? For my part, my ancestors were traveling the face of the earth 100,000 years before the people that shaped the religion that later dreamed up your god were even created. Lets always remember that despite the faith that owns these words having spent over 1000 years persecuting, invading countries and murdering anyone who refused to accept them as the only way that the universe could exist, is still considered wrong by almost 70% of the world population and that number jumps even more so among the higher educated.

    Reply

    In The Beginning God, Why can’t you just admit that you don’t have the answers and except the fact that the perfection of the universe is to great to for it all just to be an accident. two cars collide on the freeway they don’t turn into a truck. so why would two Adams collide and make a perfect universe

    Reply

    What if time is a function of a relationship between matter and anti matter, always changing, always inside out, always twisting, always disappearing and reappearing magically across what we recognize as space and in an interplay with matter and antimatter.

    Reply

    I’m not a physicist and I choose no particular faith, but much of what I hear of physics seems similar to religion to me. Someone comes up with one idea, one which we cannot necessarily prove, and the community builds a dogma around it and then defends it tooth and nail.

    The Big Bang certainly seems to draw from religion, for how else would the entirety of everything that exists be the size of a pinhead, at some finite point in the past, and then suddenly be everywhere? Or nearly everywhere, for if it has finite size it must have boundaries. (And so what is outside of that boundary?)

    I don’t subscribe to one theory or another and I don’t mean to say that there is anything wrong with religion or faith. But it seems to me that they are supposed to be fundamentally different animals. Science says it evidence-based and that, as a field and philosophy as a whole, it is about having open minds and being ready to explore new ideas. Have you forgotten the story of Galileo?

    But physicists a are human, too, and I can see two main reasons that individuals might not be so open-minded: ego and job/career security. (Those aren’t *good* reasons, they aren’t *good scientists* reasons, but they are certainly fragile human reasons.)

    Personally, I think we should welcome all possible theories and keep in mind that, at least in my novice view, much of cosmology must be *theory* and not taken as law. After all, how can we possibly claim to *know* how the universe works when we are confined to observing it from such a tiny, tiny speck of dust? Postulate your theories and share them with the world. Debate the merits among your peers. But don’t try to claim that your truth is the one and only truth. That makes you a zealot of faith who leaves no room for others to disagree with something you can never prove in the first place.

    Reply

    Wow J.D. so eloquently stated. Why does everyone have to “muck-up” science; philosophy; and
    everything else with their dogma and their “axes-to-grind” is alien to me!!!
    See a lot of complaints about global warming here that are from “so called scientists”so ignorant
    as to believe that man cannot possibly negatively effect the tiny globe we live on.
    Have they no knowledge of the 1980’s when it became clear to the entire science community that
    chlorofluorocarbons from a little source like millions and millions of spray cans was literally
    destroying our ozone layer and the damage was halted or at least limited when the manufacturing
    base moved to another propellant? I guess it is only human nature that even facts are debatable;
    but it sure makes it hard to get anything done; LOL; but the human race may be done-in
    because of it!!!!

    Reply

    Well Said @JD Brink. The threads in this article further support one ‘certainty’ – in my humble’ mind’ – the infinite arrogance and ego centricity nature of Homo sapiens. The theoretical physicists defending their dogma and jobs – for the fear of being different . Is that not what we are supposed to be doing as an academic , scientist , etc – eternally asking different questions because we will never know “everything: with our finite intelligence and really confined existence ( an inconspicuous , conscious , minute group of cells on an equally small rock in a trillion galaxies etc – if you believe that SIC ). The religious zealots with their one god and complete zest in believing our existence has to be eternal – egotistical again. Limited by our senses we infer , deduce so much ……..acceptance that everything we know now will change as we unravel this infernal onion of a multi-verse …should be the only certainty to hold true.

    Reply

    Big Bang easily explained with old 3D physics

    All the replicable 3D physics to explain the Big Bang
    needed is found in the 1st chapter to my latest book
    describing how the Big Bang Banged using Dark Energy –
    the link:
    http://allnewuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/How-the-Big-Bang-Banged.pdf

    Abstract:

    The most important thing is what Richard Feynman told
    us: “All things are made of atoms.”

    We have had our observational senses enhanced by
    invention of microscope and telescopes, allowing us to
    seek answers to deepest questions of today: including
    how was our Universe created and what is Physics of
    Dark Energy?

    Today, unsupported by physics, is the current poor
    cosmological concept that our Universe’s atoms were
    created from a ‘singleton’ popping out of ‘nothing’ and
    consequently not well received. That indicates that we
    need to study atoms for a better explanation.

    Here assembled is a number of pertinent facts when
    properly arranged, allows us to understand atoms and
    how ‘physics’ of dark energy was employed before,
    during, and after Big Bang.

    Assembling some of these 13.8 billion year old
    spherical atoms into a match, when struck, emit light
    photons instantaneously at 186,282 miles per second,
    indicating that some energy must drive atom’s orbiting
    electrons at speed of light.

    We note that a very tiny gram’s worth of ancient
    uranium atoms when properly configured for fission;
    redirects its power source during a ‘chain reaction’ and
    destroys a city. Both atomic processes, fission and
    fusion, redirects power in star’s atoms. Where is this
    tremendous redirected power coming from?

    The best consideration is chaotic Dark Energy running
    prior to Big Bang, converged and created matter just
    like at Stanford Labs where a tiny amount of atomic
    matter was created by smashing massive energy beams
    in ‘97.

    Based on all above, plus more, we find that creation of
    our Universe [Big Bang] was constructed out of chaotic
    Dark Energy –vast, powerful, and timeless, existing
    prior to Big Bang and continues to exist based on all the
    stars shinning in all the galaxies in our Universe.

    Science finds the tools
    Philosophy seeks the craftsman

    I am an author and independent researcher for the last
    20 years studying cosmology and in that respect I have
    presented my studies at 7 philosophical and 15 science
    conferences that includes three this spring and are all
    listed at my web site;
    http://www.allnewuniverse.com/public-talks/

    Author of:
    The Big Bang Book: How, Where & When Demonstrated
    available at:
    https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Book-Where-Demonstrated/dp/0967035317

    Reply

    It is important that this article be sent to the science advisors of both Ms. E. Warren and J. Biden, since our sitting president (note the lack of capitalization) doesn’t know fecal matter from shinola, and just aint’ interested in finding it out (and it is highly questionable that he and the dolts he surrounds himself with would know what to do with it, if they did, either.)

    There are a number of pressing issues identified here. These points need to be made early to the the replacement crew who will be striving to restore the belief in and reliance upon scientific inquiry. Which theory is correct is of less importance, as the article fairly shouts, than the keening threat of intellectual orthodoxy.

    Reply

    Your attempt to inject politics into this discussion is laughable. You desire to re-establish statist dogma and strengthen the warfare/welfare state with those two dolts. Science advisors? They have polling experts. The word “science” polls well with pseudo-independent upper middle class whiteys. If you think they care about anything else, you are watching too much CNN.

    Reply

    Yea… It’s all Trump’s fault!!! LMAO… Go roll another fat one and stare at the stars for a while.

    Reply

    Another dunce who’s convinced he knows more than the President (note the capitalization) of the US. Another liberal lead around by his feelings attempting to intelligently speak about science. Do you miss Obama, who was so clearly in over his head that he managed to weaken the country while at the same time increase racial divisions? I’ll send the President you apologies.

    Reply

    LOL. Did you really just say ‘let’s get rid of orthodoxy / so we can restore BELIEF’. Right after implying that somehow Trump is responsible for people not believing in science any more. I’m laughing so hard.

    Science is like a weapon in the sense that some people just aren’t trained or qualified to carry it. Because they’d be shooting everyone in the face with it indiscriminately at every opportunity. That person is you and your hilarious version of what science is, how it works, and who is in charge.

    Reply

    Typically said before someone upsets the cart and becomes a household name for centuries. Especially true in the realm of Physics:

    “there’s nothing new,” and “we really know fairly well everything … There’s a few things we can look at, but we’ve got the general picture.”

    Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Hawking. Every grade school child knows these names. Who was the guy at Princeton?

    Reply

    Great ideas and common sense have been ignored for generations regarding everything from the importance of doctors washing their hands before surgery to what is our true nature (no I don’t believe in “original sin). If the Big Bang is the preferred model, why is so much of the expected matter of the Universe missing? (Is it in a Black Hole?) I’m not a physicist but know what human behaviour, employers, universities and politicians are like. Most are just trying to keep their jobs, make some money and not take any risks. Effectively, they’re wearing a mask. Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper basically silenced all scientific information regarding Climate Change for almost a decade. The legacy of these types will be a legacy of mediocrity and malice. I just hope we have some strong scientific minds for the future, because we’re going to need them.

    Reply

    The universe killed the dinosaurs for being slackers. If we keep insisting on being slackers as well the universe will also kill us for the same sin. Just as an example, consider the relative size of mankind’s ecological budget and mankind’s military budget. We are slackers. As another example, slacker mentality willingly risks frying our species instead of asking how to actually benefit from managing global warming. Unwilling to even ask how we got here, we are clearly at best an emergent sentient species, hopefully becoming sentient.

    The Bible says, “In the beginning, God said…”, clearly indicating that God spoke time into existence and the big bang followed instantaneously after the creation of time. This would appear at least superficially clearly incompatible with the Vedic cyclic universe where time has both a pre existence and a post existence reality. But that dissonance may only be superficial.

    Reply

    What was here before the big bang? Something had to occupy that space since it was there so that the big bang could happen.
    All of this is wrong and it amazes the senses that supposedly the smartest people are trying to figure out what happened ions ago as if they were there.
    It’s criminal and every dollar spent on this is wasted folly. Instead of figuring out our major world climate crisis issues and the impending doomsday, the smartest sit around and ponder the past as if it would mean anything while the future looks very grim. But as time is, it means little to even worry about any of it. God help us.

    Reply

    A retired mechanical engineer seeking some explanation for it all sees today’s physicists behaving much like the religionists of past millenia. Does that say something?

    If you want to understand the Universe first you must understand the perfection of logic, the imperfection of the laws of physics and the limits of human perception. Once your understanding matures you must learn to communicate starting with a clear understanding of the listener. Action in concert with others is the foundation of human achievement. Alone we are doomed. Love and respect are the glue that holds us together.

    Reply

    Big Bang models describe “In the beginning” as analogous to the North Pole i.e. there is nothing further North than North. Fair enough, but the North Pole is describable as is any other point on Earth. There is nothing special about being at the North Pole with regard to its state conditions. All variables are measurable at the North Pole as they are 100 km South.
    So for all Big Bang models what are the state conditions of the Universe at T0?
    Silence you say?
    At the very least, cyclic models attempt an explaination where the orthodox dogma is silent.

    Reply

    Interesting but totally devoid of facts. Also with the better understanding we have of Dark Matter and Energy the bounce scenario seems completely unworkable due to present day observations of the expansion and make up of over 90 percent of unknown reality working on what we due know and can interact with.

    Reply

    The big bounce theory doesn’t solve the problem of initial inflation or contraction either

    Reply

    Isn’t there a Law of Parsimony that says “take the simplest explanation that works and get on with your life. Don’t we have better things to worry about, like how to avoid stewing in our own juice?
    But it would be cool if the expansion was some kind of anti-gravity that could be put to practical use.

    Reply

    The reason no one is listening is that the theories, almost always presented as facts that build on other theories presented as facts, are continually changing whereas the theories presented as facts found it God’s Word have not changed in roughly 6,000 years. We may not understand the mind of God and How he created the universe and everything in it but it’s not continually changing and offers us an explanation of creation that we are capable of understanding. Do’t get me wrong, theories are OK but theories are not facts that you build other facts upon and that is what science just can’t seem to understand, even though science teaches is.

    Why, at this stage of development in humanity with all of the problems that face us in our daily lives, do we concern ourselves with the things that don’t have much of an effect on us when here are things of greater importance we need to consider? Yes they are interesting but are they really all that important for humanity today?

    Reply

    This is a discussion about physics, not religious mythology.
    Science is about the search for empirical objective truth about nature as we find it, often not easy to achieve or to understand even when we do.
    Einstein was a man of faith, as many scientists are, but he did not allow religious dogma to interfere with his search for knowledge about the true nature of reality.

    Reply

    Two questions/observations:

    The Big Bang open flat theories seem vaguely Christian (God created the Universe). The cyclical theory seems vaguely Hindu. In our Western Christian world it would be heresy to urge the cyclical theory….

    Secondly, time slows as you go faster. So how fast is earth moving rotating/solar orbit/galaxy rotation, galaxy moving through the universe? Are these speeds taken into account when measuring far distant objects speed/direction of travel relative to earth?

    Reply

    interesting article – but as others have pointed out, this is still not answering the question. As strictly a lay person, who has pondered THE question as long as I can remember (and yes, I do mean since I was about 5 years old), what was BEFORE the universe as we know it? what is outside the universe as we know it? Inflation, Big Bang, Bounce, string, all pretty much talk about the Universe as we know it, as we see it today. Bounce at least gives an idea of there being on going inflation and contraction. So 10 million years from now there will be a slightly different Universe than there was 10 million years ago and the same arguments will prevail. Basically, this is not much more than which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? or how big is infinity?

    Reply

    Change “cosmological inflation” to “global warming” and you get the same result. Nobody dares challenge the status quo because their funding would evaporate. In evidence of this, read the anticipated responses claiming I am wrong without proof.

    Reply

    Quoting the bible is nonsense. It has been shown to be entirely unreliable. It is the work of many men over extended time frames.
    It has no place in this discussion, in my opinion

    Reply

    The Bible, as understood by fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist positivists, does have many seeming contradictions. Looking to the history of natural science, it began as a Christian (Catholic) theological quest for knowledge. St. Augustine struggled with the same distorted understanding of the Bible/Scripture as many modern day agnotic/atheist scientists. Faith and reason (in the Catholic tradition) are both a human intellectual quest for truth. They cannot be at odds with each other unless divinely revealed as so, such as a resurrection from death. While the Bible is revealed truth, it is inspired Word, written by many different inspired writers, and often should not be taken literally, but figuratively or allegorically. Fr. Lemairte bridged the experimental cosmological work of Hubble and others with the theoretical work of Friedmann and others to develop the big bang. He was a Catholic priest, with the full support of the Church behind him in his quest for the Truth. He is a part of a long Christian intellectual history unique to the western culture that brought about modern science as we now know it.

    Reply

    i never really gave the big bang theory much thought until recently. I can’t really explain why, but now the big bang theory sounds like a total joke. everything came from a single point? i don’t think so.

    Reply

    In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Let God be true and every man a liar. It doesn’t matter what speculators, revisionists, atheists, and pseudoscientists will say.

    Reply

    Nifty article! One suggested edit, to fix a grammatical aaaargh!

    Moving around 3 words does the trick.

    Logical rupture (or awkwardness) in “Ijjas says that, as a young researcher, there has to be a balance between risk-taking and conservatism.”

    Suggested edit: As a young researcher, Ijjas says that there has to be a balance between risk-taking and conservatism.

    A longtime ex-translator (Eng-Fr) in Ottawa, Canada

    Reply

    Jess, I believe that your description of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is incorrect. In the 2nd paragraph, you write: “… he proposed that the universe could instead be better described by an alternative theory, conformal cyclic cosmology, which posits that our universe continually alternates between periods of expansion and contraction”.

    In CCC, however, there is no period of contraction, only expansion. Indeed, in the opening paragraph of the linked article “The basic ideas of conformal cyclic cosmology”, Penrose explicitly states “There is no stage of contraction (to a “big crunch”) in this model.”. There is, instead of a period of contraction, an “infinite scale change” where the infinitely expanded state of the prior aeon passes to the “big bang” state of the next aeon. For completeness, I quote the opening paragraph of the article below:

    “In this article, I outline a new cosmological proposal—conformal cyclic cosmology, or
    CCC—according which the universe undergoes repeated cycles of expansion, that I
    refer to as aeons, each starting from its own “big bang” and finally coming to a stage
    of accelerated expansion which continues indefinitely (which would be for an infinite
    time, according to how a clock made of physical material would measure time), in
    close accordance with current observations of our own aeon. There is no stage
    of contraction (to a “big crunch”) in this model. Instead, each aeon of the universe, in a
    sense “forgets” how big it is, both at its big bang and in its very remote future where it
    becomes physically identical with the big bang of the next aeon, despite there being an
    infinite scale change involved, on passing from one aeon to the next.”

    Reply

    A theory in physics is a mathematical description of empirically observable phenonmena. There can be potentially many different models that describe one or more elements of physical reality. Einstein’s theory of general relativity in a four vector space/time model proved to be orders of magnitude more accurate with regard to gravity than anything preceeding it, but the differential geometry he used was incomplete at the time, resulting in known errors of which one is the concept of a singularity. In Einstein’s terms the singularity is the point at which the math fails.
    It was not a description of physical reality, yet theoretical physics continues to regard it as real over 100 years later and the standard model for big bang and black holes reflect this. Academic theoretical physics has degenerated into what Roger Bacon referred to as pursuing the Idols of the Cave. Elegant mathematics to be sure, but much of it not empirically observable or testable, which is not Baconian physics. It does make a handsome living for a lot of university professors if one plays the game well
    Meanwhile Baconian empiricists have continued to develop real world physics well beyond the conceptual limitations of the standard model. Physics that are applied to engineering real products, like your cell phone, on a daily basis. For example Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as conceived has been reduced in scope by more than nine orders of magnitude to the point where we can actually photograph the wave/particle duality nature of light down to single photon resolution.
    In 1905 Einstein could not model the torsion element of relativity because the math to do so did not yet exist, so he assigned it a 0 value. Hence the singularity. The math was completed by Elie Cartan in 1926. It took until the first decade of this century for experiments in non-linear optics by the Welsh chemical physicist Myron Evsns to lead to a mathematically accurate incorporation of torsion into a unified field theory of relativity using Cartan geometry, reaching the goal that Einstein sought but never achieved. All known esperimentally proven equations in all branches of physics: gravity, electromagnetics, and quantum mechanics, can be derived and computed in a four dimensional space/time unified relativity model that is both predictive and engineerable. Academia may be ignoring this, even actively opposing it, but industrial and military research certainly is not.
    Singularities don’t and can’t exist in nature, hence the concept of infinite gravitational collapse that underlies big bang theory and black hole theory is wrong

    Reply

    I am not an expert in any of the fields of this discussion, but as a youth fifty years ago I argued with my professors of physics theories and ideas which went against the then popular theories of the time. My ideas of then are now the currently accepted theories. I think the scientific world being populated with human beings, is like any other and greatly subject to the vagaries of human desires, self interest and personal agendas, with built in inertia and cyclic faddishism. Not necessarily bad, just good old Human stuff. True open mindedness is a goal I think, not a real condition, requiring the opposite of what most really smart, sharp vital people possess-humbleness and a real lack of ego. Defense of ones’ work is natural, and even absolutely necessary in spurring or forcing the debate, the bottom line quest for the Truth, or what part of That which can be known by the human mind, but we, humans, are competitive creatures who do get caught up in our own agendas as a matter of natural course I think, we are what we are. Chipping away at understanding bit by bit in spite of our humanity is what we do well, though.
    I do think inflation is correct, or the best answer,at this time. I Believe in God. I believe He created this universe and any and all others that now or have ever existed. I understand many do not share any of this belief. I get that-no evidence, no way to prove or disprove etc. But to categorically aver there is no God is as closeminded as well I think. To refuse to consider any possibility is not open minded. As the Cat and Dog joke infers, ones’ position on the religious question may be like Einsteins findings, relative to the observers own position and circumstances. As the Cat egotistically brags that their owner feeds, pets, shelters, attends to their every need with love, obviously because the Cat IS God, and the Dog humbly attests that their owner feeds, pets, shelters, attends to their every need with love. So their owner must BE God. Likewise what I and other ‘religious’ people see in beautiful equations of physics is obviously the fantastically wondrous work of an Almighty and Loving God specifically engineered so that I can be here in the first place to exist, to have a mind capable of understanding with self awareness of myself, to Honor and praise Him for this Gift. The other side looking at the very same thing may come to the exact opposite conclusion with the exact opposite reaction of cold indifference or whatever their own feelings may be.
    I think the universe is finite. I have always felt this, as things like gravity, almost universal reciprocity and virtual particles to me have to exist only in a closed system. I think the universe is hydraulic. I think Space is an almost infinitely thin fluid that exerts the pressure called gravity. I think Time is inversely proportional to the amount of space at any point, really, points. I think electrons do not actually move, but rather change their positions in space time. Being not a trained scientist I have no proof or defense for these ideas, but it is fun to read of what scientist do prove and disprove and their theories. If I am wrong, fine, if I am ridiculed, fine too. I sometimes I am right, fine. I like physics and science and Life. I believe in God. I am in awe of the universe we inhabit and the laws rules and events that got us, and me to be able to write this, on this wondrous machine on my lap, in comfort with many blessings to be thankful for. Thanks, Charles

    Reply

    Maybe the Universe did annihilate itself via anti-matter vs. matter at the inception, and dark matter is responsible for matter’s formation. In the beginning, there was just pure energy, which was nurtured by dark matter into becoming matter. This would make dark matter the primary catalyst for the formation of galaxies. It also points out the mystery of dark matter, how could it endow pure energy with solidity.

    Reply

    So actual scientific thinking takes a back seat to “career survival” and risk taking takes a back seat to toeing the line. What else are we wrong about but are afraid to speak up about for fear of being burned at the stake?

    Reply

    I am not a practicing physicist, nor a mathematician. But read the popular books by Sir Penrose, Julian Barbour and of course Stephen Hawking. Without going into the details; if we think of either universe to be expanding or bouncing or closed; what is there beyond the universe? Is it that we are missing out a parameter in our common sense that prompts us to model it to fit our perception?

    Reply

    By definition – there’s nothing before (or outside) the Universe. Our intuitive notions of space and time – rooted in primate evolution and biology – are not relevant to the possible nature of reality. Only math can get close enough to give us an inkling of it…

    Reply

    I am a retired dentist, but for the past 40 years, I have been questioning the big bang theory. How did all the mass accumulate in order for the Big Bang?
    If F it just appeared, then that is a huge bug in the Big Bang Theory.
    Is the universe infinite, and if so, then could our apparent universe be but a small part of its immensity? Could there be many Big Bangs so far apart that they are well beyond our forseeable future ability of any vision of them?
    Is the entire universe cyclical, or is it cyclical in parts. Is anyone thinking beyond the current theories which conflict with the Big Bang?

    Reply

    It is likely that the total mass-energy content of the Universe is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative, and by observation seems to be about equal to the positive energy of all the “stuff”.

    Reply

    The Big Bang theory does not assert that a lot of matter coalesced in an otherwise-empty universe, only to explode outward from that point. Rather, it posits that the universe itself expanded, and matter formed once the universe cooled enough to allow it. A simplistic example would be to mark multiple points on the surface of a balloon and note how they move further apart from one another as the balloon is inflated. In this example, there is no point on the surface of the balloon one can point to and say “this is where the Big Bang” happened, because it happened everywhere at the same time.

    Reply

    Dark energy and dark matter always seemed to me to be an act of desperation by scientist trying to explain why observations did not fit theory. Definitely the most exciting time in science right now with the new telescopes being built like the James Webb, 30 meter, etc..

    Reply

    There is no big bang, no inflation, no bounce. The Geocentric model of the universe is correct. The Earth is at the center of the universe.

    Reply

    So beautiful how God’s creations both atheists and non-atheists are given such knowledge to use the cosmos as sort of playground to play with even if they are wrong. (Even within the premise of the Big Bang, God still shows His Presence via the “axis of evil” which Nasa and the European space agency confirmed marked the Earth at it’s center). He loves us all so much that even those who do not believe in Him with sincerity are the perfect example of that most amazing gift; And that is free-will. Today’s prodigal son is the atheist who returned home to his Father and given his rightful Inheritance. And that is to finally realize himself as a most precious and awesome creation that Darwinism labelled a “beta” so early in his life, objectifying him as such so that he felt alienated from the high school social life in which he found himself, feeling made unworthy of the most basic of affections. No, there is no such thing as a beta, because God makes no such thing. #FlyEaglesFly

    Reply

    ‘ The Earth is at the center of the universe.’

    Vic the Earth isn’t even at the center of our galaxy.

    I believe in GOD and Jesus Christ but I don’t believe creation happened the way it’s written in the bible. Genesis was written how many years ago? Did Adam write about the first six days?

    Reply

    The dogma Copernicus had to stand up to was nothing. Compared to the entrenched mutually assured Dogmatists of today.

    Reply

    I’m not a cosmologist or physicist. A person doesn’t have to be either of the two to enjoy thinking about the question of how the Universe came to be. I do however reject any and all explanations associated with Biblical or theological origin. These explanations are to easy and exist only for the most ignorant among us and are constantly being made up or changed as time goes on. You’ll have to do better than that.

    Reply

    Here is what Alan Guth, the main originator of the theory of cosmic inflation, which is “widely considered an integral component of the new Big Bang cosmology,” writes: “Although the basic idea still looks very attractive, we still don’t know the real details of inflation or the mechanism that drives it.” (Astronomy, April 2002, p. 30)

    I ask how this inflation idea can be compatible with science? It appears to be an invention to try to resolve problems that an expanding model has with an observed universe that has the large-scale homogenous and isotropic cluster distribution, even accounting for the observed filimentary patterns. Guess what? An infinite non-expanding model universe will have the observed patterns without any need for inflation or Einstein’s cosmological constant fudge factor.

    In my multi-decade review of current cosmology I came to the early conclusion that it is a pandering for funding from a culture that for religious reasons prefers a beginning in time. For support of this statement see:

    https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/bigbangreligion

    Much of what gets told about the history of modern cosmology is myth-repeating and the repetition of errors. What matters most in the field is being compatible with societal prejudice. Most of my website arguments critical of the Big Bang paradigm is from about 30 years ago, but they still stand strong today. See:

    https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/

    A new page I put together argues against the cosmological redshift as being the result of the expansion interpretation. See:

    https://sites.google.com/view/cosmic-expansion-problem/home

    Reply

    Cool, and your proof is where, exactly? Just because a religion has a basic premise that is somewhat plausible doesn’t mean it is true. The creation story of the Torah explains the order in which things were created fairly closely with accepted scientific theory when looked at from the point of view of allegorical days and a story told from a prophets human visual perspective, but that doesn’t equal a scientific truth either.

    Reply

    Just because something cannot be determined by the scientific method doesn’t mean its not true either.

    Reply

    I’ll take the Bible over science any day. Science can do nothing to save your soul. As hard as science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, all they do is continue to prove how right it really is. Who but The True Creator could have put all this in motion with such perfection. He is who we should be studying.

    Reply

    Science and the Bible: Cosmos and Creator

    By Mark Eastman, M.D.

    They have been called the two greatest questions that face mankind: Does God exist, and if He does, what is His nature? Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the answer to these questions have been sought by examining the nature of the universe and its life forms.

    The Cosmos

    When Albert Einstein published the first of his relativity theories in 1905, he shocked the physics community with a staggering new view of space, time, matter and energy. Though he did not know it at the time, his theories provide dramatic insights into the attributes of the Creator of the cosmos.

    Among other things, what Einstein’s theories revealed was that the flow of time and the structure of space were relative to the velocity, mass and acceleration of the observers. That is, their observed values were not fixed: they were relative.

    For thousands of years, scientists and philosophers believed that time was nothing more than an abstract notion, conceived in the minds of men, and used to describe the change seen in the physical world. Time, it was believed, was not a thing, it was a mental contrivance. Einstein showed that this was wrong. Time, Einstein showed, was “plastic.” That is, it is a physical property of the universe, and that the observed rate that time flows depends on the physical conditions present at the measuring device.

    Several years after Einstein’s theories were published, astronomer Willem de Sitter found a mathematical error in Einstein’s equations. When corrected, he found a startling mathematical prediction buried within his equations: The universe was finite! Space-time, matter, and energy had a beginning.

    In his book, It’s About Time, popular author and physicist Paul Davies remarks on this incredible discovery.

    Modern scientific cosmology in the most ambitious enterprise of all to
    emerge from Einstein’s work. When scientists began to explore the
    implications of Einstein’s time for the universe as a whole, they made
    one of the most important discoveries in the history of human thought:
    that time, and hence all physical reality, must have had a definite origin
    in the past. If time is flexible and mutable, as Einstein demonstrated, then
    tt is possible for time to come into existence, and also to pass away again;
    there can be a beginning and an end of time. (Paul Davies, It’s About Time,
    Touchstone Books/Simon and Schuster, 1995, pg. 17.)

    The Skeptic

    I recently had an opportunity to speak on the origin of life at a major public university in Southern California. In attendance were a number of professors who are self-described agnostics. During the question period, one of the professors admitted that the evidence is compelling that the universe was indeed finite. He said that while he could not believe in God (because he couldn’t see Him, or study Him scientifically) he said he did believe that someday scientists would discover a law that would explain the origin and order of the universe and its life forms.

    After pointing out that he had just expressed faith, the belief in things unseen, but hoped for, I asked him if he believed that the laws of physics, which work in our space-time domain, also had a beginning. He was forced to concede that they did because they would have no place to act before the space-time domain existed.

    The final blow came when I asked him if he then believed that some “law” of physics could explain the origin of the laws of physics! He saw the point: The laws of physics cannot be the cause of the laws of physics! The cause of the universe and its laws must be independent of the space-time domain, exactly as the Bible claimed 3,500 years earlier!

    Apostle Paul’s statement regarding the attributes of God being discerned by an examination of the nature of the universe is quite staggering, considering the state of scientific knowledge in the first century A.D. At that time it was commonly believed that the universe was eternal. In the face of that commonly held bias, the Bible clearly taught that the universe was finite, and the Creator is independent of time and space, exactly as 20th century cosmology suggests.

    In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth… Genesis 1:1
    …God, (v.9) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not
    according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace
    which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.
    2 Timothy 1:8-9

    …in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before
    time began. Titus 1:2

    The finiteness of space-time not only points to a Creator who is independent of the cosmos, but it also gives us insight into the minimum resume of such a Being.

    The Uncaused Cause

    In my discussion with the agnostic professors, I asked them to give me the caveat, for the sake of my next argument, that God did indeed exist. They agreed. I then asked them what would be the minimum “resume” of such a Being. Remarkably, they were quite insightful in their deductions. They quickly recognized that such a Being would not only have to be independent of space-time, but must also be incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent and able to act unencumbered, simultaneously inside and outside the time domain. Remarkably, without recognizing it, they had described the resume of the Creator as revealed in the Biblical text!

    Among other things, the law of cause and effect asserts that a cause is always greater than its effect. Applied to the cosmos it means that the Creator must be more powerful than all the energy stored in all the stars in all the galaxies in the entire universe. Physicists believe that there are at least 10 exp80 particles in the universe. Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2 indicates that the energy stored in the mass of the universe is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared! From this perspective, the Creator must be an all-powerful, omnipotent Being. This very attribute is credited to God throughout the Bible’s text.

    Ah Lord GOD! Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy
    great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for
    thee. Jeremiah 32:17

    Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard
    for me? Jeremiah 32:27

    In my discussion with the professors even they admitted that all the chemists, molecular biologists and physicists in the world combined have been unable to create a DNA molecule from raw elements: hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, etc. Moreover, molecular biologists admit that living cells are metabolic machines which are vastly more complicated than any machine made by mankind. They agreed in principle that the nature of these cellular “machines” would require a Being possessing unfathomable intelligence. Such a Being would be, from our limited perspective, an all-knowing, omniscient Creator. Throughout the Bible’s text God is described in such terms. For example, in Jeremiah 1:5, God’s omniscience is illustrated in his foreknowledge of the prophet even before he was born:

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I
    sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5

    The infinite knowledge of God is proclaimed in 1 John 3:20 and in Psalm 147:5:

    For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows
    all things 1 John 3:20

    Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite.
    Psalm 147:5

    Finally, if our space-time domain is the direct creation of God, then once he created the cosmos, in order to organize and uphold the galaxies, solar systems and its life forms, the Creator must be able to act simultaneously, inside and outside the space time domain. This attribute we call omnipresence. This too is an attribute that is ascribed to God throughout the Bible’s text.

    Am I a God near at hand,” says the LORD,”And not a God afar off? Can
    anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the
    LORD; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD. Jeremiah 23:23-24

    For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in
    the midst of them. Matthew 18:20

    Reply

    Excellent analysis. Thank you for sharing your compelling and insightful revelation of God’s essence and power.

    Reply

    You should know better, scientists don’t have to prove that God doesn’t exist, but you should prove that God exist! Science is about proof and religion is about faith, you have already made your pick, good for you!

    Reply

    Excellently argued theory of the origin of the cosmos. I converted from a believer in the Big Bang to the theory of a Creator when I rationalized the fact that before the present creation took place both the Creator and the state existence was “Unknown and unknowable.”

    Reply

    After more than fifty years of being an open-minded agnostic (now 62), I came to the conclusion that the universe does indeed act as if it was created with purpose and precision. From the fine tuning of the constants of physics, to the unbelievable complexity of the cell and biological systems, it should be apparent to anyone who takes an honest look at it that we’re lucky to be taking part in a grand experiment. Scientists should rejoice that they have the intellect and tools to investigate how it all works, not given all of the answers.

    Reply

    I don’t think anyone will really see this – so I am really just writing this for S. Phillips.

    Any discourse requires some starting points to give a frame of reference. Here are some basic concepts that I am pretty sure we can agree upon.

    1.) Knowledge is defined as a personally justified belief with repeated experiences proving that belief.

    2.) Wisdom is the knowledge of how to use knowledge.

    3.) Imagination is the genesis, the precursor to knowledge.

    4.) Faith requires all of these elements to exist. (Really, really, think about it.)

    Now that this is out of the way –

    I would think that most people can see a certain balance in the universe. The more that I learn, the more simple perfection I see. I could quite literally spend all day, sitting here, pointing out examples of perfect balance in biology, organic chemistry, human physiology, ….. the list just goes on. (seriously I am leaving so many things out)

    I personally belief, for myself, that there are just too many pieces of knowledge that point to a perfection in design and scream purpose. So, yes, I believe (and personally think it’s kind of obvious) that there is a creation force at work.

    I am trying my best to be careful with what “words” I use. You might use “God” as that force, another person might use “Allah”, and other might use something else entirely.

    And this is what this post is really about, word choice.

    I am afraid.

    I am afraid that the discoveries of man (which start with an idea, powered by imagination, divine inspiration?) get lost or sometimes tainted by a bias often emanating from ignorance and selfishness that brings division. Using different words, I fear that the religion (any of man’s ideologies) *can* warp faith, polarize people, and even work against that “purpose” which all we see an know is supporting.

    I am making no assertion – just expressing a fear.

    The call to action is for all of us (humans) to learn, grow, and discover truth(s) – through the lens of selflessness and uncompromising cooperation and collaboration. Focus less on “what words” someone uses and more on the meaning behind those words. Don’t force your words on others – but instead connect through common purpose.

    I sometimes wonder if that is why so much of human communication is non-verbal.

    Reply

    Amen! We are human with FLAWS and are SINFUL in nature. God is the Creator. He made light and darkness. The Heavens like earth are His domain.

    Reply

    Are the above statements yours, or those of Mark Eastman, MD?

    Interesting. “The laws of physics cannot be the cause of the laws of physics.” Who says they would be? The “laws” of physics, as we observe them, are probably not known to their fullest extent. They may never be fully known as we discover hidden properties of those same “laws” the deeper we dig into heretofore unknown realms. Are the “laws” changed? Do they transmute? Do they cease to exist? None of the above. So far, we have discovered that our descriptions of the “laws” need to change when they no longer can accurately describe what we observe. That’s why physicists do not refer to them as “laws,” but as theories. The Theory of Gravity. The Special Theory of Relativity. The General Theory of Relativity. String Theory. The Big Bang (Hyperinflation) Theory. Quantum Theory. Etc, etc, etc.

    The entire argument boils down to “God did it.” Really? That’s very convenient. Can anyone prove that? Can anyone make any predictions with that? Can anyone quote mine the Bible and tell anyone anything that will be discovered at any point in the future that can then be repeated and used to modify and deepen our understanding of how the universe works in any meaningful way? Something we can then use to improve our lives or, even better, the lives of our descendants?

    I think it’s perfectly lovely that you have something that gives you meaning to your life and that you wish to share it with everyone. Thank you. I just don’t think it’s particularly useful in the quest for scientific understanding of our universe. Why? Because the answer “God did it” to any question is a sign that the questioner has given up. It is the end of inquiry, the end of exploration, the end of alternative possibilities. It is an answer that will not ever be completely falsified in that it is an answer that forever retreats to those areas still dark to the light of scientific understanding.

    So, go ahead and think that God dd it. Go ahead and post your thoughts – or someone else’s – to a scientific magazine, discussion group, forum, whatever, you have the absolute right to do so. But please know that you added nothing to the discussion that most of us haven’t heard hundreds of time before.

    One last thing before I conclude my TLDR rant: “The law of cause and effect,” is an over-simplified statement of the concept of entropy. One problem: This version assumes the completely unaffected persistence of the cause after the effect manifests. This is not observed in nature. While it seems logical that if I cause something to happen I am still greater than what I caused, I am, however, not unchanged. Whatever I did required the shedding of mass as energy. Indeed, if the effect of my efforts requires the expenditure of enough energy, I would cease to exist in my present form. The “Law of cause and effect” is a mental bait and switch that uses popular terms to describe everyday existence that is simply incomplete, and ultimately shown to be so when observed with enough resolution. (This is where the special pleading comes in that says God is outside of all physical laws. Again, an UN-falsifiable dead end).

    Reply

    The fact that the Bible is LOADED with scientific and historical errors, means it CANNOT be taken seriously by any rational, inquisitive, open-minded man/woman. But some people are so blinded by their faith in this load of horseshit, that they continue to bring its claims up just because a scientist conceded we don’t know. ” A God who anticipated false religions so He authenticated His Word with thousands of prophecies” is also what the Muslims say, hence the Qur’an. This “logic” has been debunked several times, but idiots don’t want to listen. Regardless, to the argument “how can a law describe other laws”, the response would be “Where did God come from?” As simple as that. The fundamental law, so to speak, has a VASTLY HIGHER PROBABILITY of being correct than an ego-maniac God described in the Bible. Period.

    Reply

    Shawn Phillips references a book written by Mark Eastman “M.D” Nowhere can I find a credible bio for this author or any proof he was attained a doctorate in medicine.

    Reply

    Thank you so much for this excellent apology for the Creator and Creation from a scientific viewpoint.

    Reply

    Your argument is that physics is incomplete, therefore god? Beyond ridiculous! There are many alternate explanations of reality before we get to a sentient creator, much less the biblical version. For some 1600 years ‘god’ was the answer for every unexplained phenomenon Western civilization encountered and a subject was closed. That led to nowhere – little progress, no discovery. It was not until we questioned basic assumptions that science became possible again.

    And that is exactly what is going on here, questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence and discarding ideas that don’t work. If that path leads to discovery of a creator, fine. But we find it through evidence.

    Reply

    Very much enjoyed reading the post. Good argument very well presented. Thanks for sharing it.

    Reply

    The fundamental premise of the “Cult of the Big Bang” is that the universe is expanding.

    In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that light from distant galaxies appeared to be “red shifted”, the wavelengths of known spectral lines were longer than those observed in earthly laboratories. He also observed that the shift was dependent upon the distance to the distant object, being greater for those farther away.

    There were two main theories advanced to explain this phenomenon. Fritz Zwicky proposed “tired light”, the light lost energy as it traveled. The other theory was that it was a Doppler shift caused by the objects moving away from us. Zwicky’s theory was rejected based upon Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity that stated that the speed of light in a vacuum was a constant, and that there was no known mechanism to cause it to slow. In optical terms, the Index of Refraction of a vacuum is precisely unity, 1.

    The key phrase is “in a vacuum”. At the time the consensus was that the interstellar medium was a true vacuum. That was more than 80 years ago. Modern observations challenge that consensus. Observations, by radio astronomy, of the leading edge of the pulse from pulsars show that shorter wavelengths arrive before longer wavelengths. This is exactly what you would expect if the Index of Refraction of the interstellar medium were greater than unity.

    The implication is that the interstellar medium is not a true vacuum. Zwicky is vindicated, the universe is not expanding.

    Reply

    Exactly. I started to question this when I learned that the density of lab created vacuums was a billion times as dense as that of the vacuum in inter-galactic space, yet special relativity says that c is exactly the same in both cases, which is contrary to how light behaves in every other medium. The denser it is the lower the value of c.

    Reply

    Yes, it’s like someone for the first time says (or i hear) that the emperor wears no clothes.
    This hypothesis of inflation always seem to me the most contrived special pleading imaginable.
    …. not enough time for big bang to explain the observation that the CMB is uniform in every direction….no problem let’s assume it was inflated basically instantaneously (by 10^78 immediately) ….why? who? by what mechanism? …. shut up….it’s not important … we are doing science….and science means pulling special pleading explanations from our behinds.
    One of the most popular factoids often cited as a proof for this is that the theory explains the distribution of matter in the universe…yet this is one of the most dishonest things i ever heard….it is pure retrofitting if it ever was one, since inflation time can be arbitrary adjusted (since it is an arbitrary explanation) hence it can be easily adjusted to fit well known distribution observation which came much before this “scientific” theory..
    This is just a symptom of a field that lost it’s way and gone into pure speculation, religion like ….. just say we don’t know and we will stick to the evidence because we are scientists ….and we do not have to publish stupid books and we are not attention whores that can’t imagine missing a tv interview or a podcast talk.

    Reply

    Why do cosmologists only ask the question ,How?
    but totally ignore the the obvious that will provide all the answers ‘why?’
    Maybe it’s because it’s been there all the time…’Occums Razor’

    Reply

    ALL THE TIME IT IS OUR WHOLE PURPOSE OF HUMANITY TO KNOW WHAT REMAINS UNKNOWN. IT IS ALSO HUMAN BUT
    IT IS ALSO GREAT THAT UNIVERSE WE CAN SEE OR ABLE TO IMAGINE MAY NOT BE ALL TOTAL THIS IS THE ETERNAL
    QUARRY OF OUR SCIENCE IS TO KNOW WHAT UNKNOWN .
    IS OUR ABLITY TOKNOW BY INTELLIGENCE THE END OR UNKNOWABLE UNIMAGINABLE UNTOUCHABLE OMNIPOTENT
    AS VEDIC VERSION. MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE IS ENDING HERE!
    BUT HUMANITY IS GODLY SO TO CARRY ON THIS IS OUR FATE ACCOMPLISHED.

    Reply

    I agree with sudhir bhatia, cyclical, continual. If we found out what the vedics knew all along to be true is true, what would the physicists have left to think about? I’m of the opinion that other things may be discovered while on the path to understanding the universe that could help us, possibly to avoid extinction from whatever killed the dinosaurs. The system for funding research is flawed, and what scientists feel they will loose if they can’t get it, or that their rep.will destroyed if someone comes up with a better theory, really sucks. Theories are ment to be challenged, they aren’t facts. And we have no real way to prove any of them. We have a very small perspective, as far as time goes to even be able to accurately asses the universe, so what. And so what if your theory gets challenged, come up with a better one, dah.

    Reply

    The inflation theory has a good foothold because it is based on experimental evidence within the observable universe, rather than just theoretical equations. The concept of what is logical with respect to the rationalization of such equations tends to lack any real experimental evidence. It may be that a multidimensional space-time perspective of the universe would lend itself better to its comprehension that our rudimentary 3rd and 4th dimensional speculations.

    If expansion is the theoretical equivalent of flattening/smoothing out the fabric of space-time, then what is left after this process, and how did it get wrinkled to begin with? Still, beyond the objectivity of mathematics, the theoretical conundrum was interdependent on the abstraction of the model being proposed; hence the influential bias toward a predetermined theory. As an example, if you believe the universe was expanding in consequence to the Big Bang theory, then all your proofs require supporting this theoretical hypothesis. This becomes a problem when trying to predict ‘cause and effect’ for such a model. If the intent is to support the primary force of gravity in a macro-model of baryonic matter, then the three possible outcomes of an expanding universe are described as an open, flat, and closed universe. If the universe were open, it would expand forever. If the universe were flat, it would also expand forever, but the expansion rate would slow to zero after an infinite amount of time. If the universe were closed, it would eventually stop expanding and then collapse on itself, possibly leading to its original state and another big bang. In all three cases, the expansion slows, and the force that causes the slowing is gravity. If the intent is to support the primary force of dark energy in a macro-model of both ordinary and dark matter, then this expansion must either slow down due to momentum in resistance or speed up due to the increasing absence of resistance within the associated medium of dark energy.

    The answer may be better understood by thinking about gravity a bit differently. In fact, one actually has to reimagine the universe from its perspective make up. Considering the current notion the standard model of cosmology, the current measurements decompose the total energy of the observable universe with 68% dark energy, 27% mass–energy via dark matter, and 5% mass-energy via ordinary matter. In which case using black holes as an example, as black holes are significantly more energy dense than ordinary matter, it would then make more sense that black holes are a product of dark matter rather than condensed ordinary matter. This requires that we rethink these internal relationships for total energy.

    Considering the ‘Big Bang’ theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the ‘Big Bang’ theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant. Then start unfolding this dimensional perspective so space-time fabric into existence; first into a two dimensional space-time fabric, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time fabric and so on. The expectation is that ordinary matter creation took place within a pre-existing medium of space-time. Indeed, the existence of ordinary matter would only warp the pre-existing fabric of space-time. Take away the positive density matter and you would still have a vessel in which the matter once existed. I would only be logical for the vessel to be one of dark energy; dark energy unaffected by this promulgation of matter.

    Wherein the creation of ordinary matter, or positive density matter, induces a complementary displacement, or warping, in the dark energy medium of the space-time fabric. And yet this complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This envelope of negative density matter, known as dark matter, then infiltrates the spaces in matter, providing it with the ability to interact, bond, and evolve. Indeed it would require much more dark matter to fill the spaces among ordinary matter down to its smallest constituent parts.

    So if dark matter is what engenders a force of gravity for ordinary matter to bond, then the accretion and accumulation of ordinary matter is just the resultant consequence of this force. And if the black holes are nothing but dark matter, then it would also follow that dark matter can be accumulated, separate of ordinary matter. It would therefore also follow that the gravitational force is more representative of negative density mass than positive density mass.

    Upon this hypothesis then, one can expect that there is a require transition to separate ordinary matter from its complementary dark matter. It starts first with the disintegration of matter, as a whole, as it interacts with the event horizon of the black hole. As the positive density mass is ‘squeezed’ upon its own gravitational acceleration toward the black hole, liken to the spaghettification effect, its matter changes to allow for its disintegration via transmutation and the massive release of photons due to alpha decay and beta decay. This is the effect wherein positive density mass is collected within the event horizon, into a plasma, increasing its photon density. This ‘squeezing’ effect is like extracting out the dark matter from the whole matter, allowing for the ordinary matter to be reduced to its smallest constituent components. The dark matter is then absorbed into the black hole, and the remnants of ordinary matter are discarded and radiated out at high velocity back into the cosmos; to start, once again, to reintegrated into the universe via bonding and evolving.

    If you’re interested in exploring this concept more, please review the alternative theories presented in the book, ‘The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2’, or even the ramifications of these concepts in the sci-fi fantasy adventure, ‘Shadow-Forge Revelations’. The theoretical presentation brings forth a variety of alternative perspectives on the aspects of existence that form our reality.

    Reply

    Mr. Bauer, the penultimate paragraph in your discussion of black holes and the sqeezing of matter addresses a seeming contradiction that has bothered me, though I am only an observer of these discussions. How can the the amount of matter in the universe be constant while black holes remove so much content of the universe constantly?
    Your idea of the separation of dark matter from ordinary matter at the edge would point to the notion that what is constant, then, is the ordinary matter, not all matter.

    Reply

    I agree there is a problem with the physics Orthodoxy and status quo physics is losing lots of good papers that disagree with the dogmatic conclusions of historical physics genius. However, the big blind spot for physics and cosmology has always been it’s failure to accept there is such a thing as electricity and charge in space. Historically, the nebular hypothesis, was the result of a thermal dynamics and gas pressure model plus gravity. the problem is that ELECTRICITY was left out of these models and simulations of our solar system and of the big bang all rely and assume there there is not such thing as charged particles and that electricity has no effect on cosmic or solar evolution. When the big bang was first proposed, it was wrongly assumed that all matter in the universe was charge neutral. Since then, the status quo cosmologist and physicist have continued to ignore electricity and the electric charge of matter in all their simulations of the big bang or solar evolution.

    I don’t think any of these cosmic inflation or deflation arguments matter much since they all ignore that more relevant fact that matter has charge and electric potential. If you want to know about The Electric Universe and how matter works if you don’t ignore electricity, then try https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

    Reply

    The Big Bang popped, hadronization proceeded below 156 MeV temperature, conservation laws decreed exactly identical amounts of matter and antimatter. The universe annihilated to photons and neutrinos.

    The Big Bang popped, yadda yada, Sakharov criteria (trace chiral anisotropic vacuum), Noetherian conservation law leakage left a net matter universe. Physics said, “exact vacuum symmetries! so we can do the maths.” Theory enjoyed four decades and counting of splendid proliferation of empirical sterility. To criticize is to volunteer.

    If net matter universe vacuum is a Sakharov trace left foot, then pairs of tight molecular shoes (quantitatively extreme chiral enantiomers in 3:1 ratio) embed with different energies. Blow a vacuum supersonic expansion 2 kelvin rotational temperature molecular beam through a chirped-pulse FT microwave spectrometer. The ground state rotational transition will be a 3:1 lopsided line validating the universe and falsifying “accepted” physical theory. Easy experiment (DOI:10.1002/anie.201704221). The carefully wicked, rigid, point group C3 prolate top, 2 debye molecule, 8 of 11 of its skeletal atoms being homochiral centers (no Sn symmetry axes), is 2-trifluoromethyl-D3-trishomocubane. The first rotational transition is near 2.108 GHz, J = 0→1. If physics is scared theoryless, it should be. Look.

    Reply

    Yes, I agree with the blog, Not a single scientist (having current scientific knowledge post GR) want to discuss other than related to general relativity. I do not get single reply for 10s of mails each to so called scientists. Also, current science communicators are having same mentality. This is my frustration.

    Reply

    According to Hindu vedic cosmology, there is no absolute start to time, as it is considered infinite and cyclic. Similarly, the space and universe has neither start nor end, rather it is cyclical. The current universe is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.

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

    Reply

    According to Biblical accounts, the creation was of minor concern to God. It did establish a We that formed our universe and earth, while being a single Creator and God while having a separate Spirit as well. The Old Testament scriptures account for a round earth – how long did that take science to agree upon? The Bible accounts for multi-dimensional Creator outside out space-time who can know the past, present and future of man. A God who anticipated false religions so He authenticated His Word with thousands of prophecies telling of future events before they occurred 100’s and 1000s of years written prior. Watch the movie “Kingdoms in Time” on Amazon Prime. The prophet Daniel spoke of man’s increase knowledge in the last days and man travel to and fro with ease in those days. Newton speculated man might travel at speeds of 50 mph in the future after studying Daniel. Jesus predicted WMDs in Matthew 24:21-22 that no man knows the day of Jesus return, but if the Father does not cut short the days of man, no flesh would survive. The bible hints at a future cashless world economy that uses a means to validate your mark in order to buy or sell. It predicts wireless communications and video as 2 witness are finally killed in the last days and all eyes witness their death and on the 3rd day they rise. Thousands of prophecies as the Bible is 1/3 prophecy.

    The point of the Bible is God shows little concern with creation and it’s process, but instead to focus upon who God is, who man is, the relationship of man to the Creator, and sin destroying the relationship of man with a holy God. Then comes the redemption of Grace to show man of God’s great love, to provide a solution to man’s sin condition and dilemma through this great act of Love, and to restore man’s brokeness from sin and a renewed relationship with God through man’s faith and the promise of eternal salvation.
    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

    11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

    18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

    23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

    24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Reply

    Yeah, and a couple books later we get a good price for selling my daughter. Please stop trying to peddle faith based nonsense here.

    Reply

    Also in the Bible (do you really need to read any other science book)…
    it even has the value of pi nailed down….(it’s 3)

    1 Kings 7:23 King James

    And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

    Reply

    Yea, but both hindu cosmology and abrahamic cosmology were created in different times and places, and totally contradict each other. And there is no way to determine if either is true or false. They are in the realm of speculation and philosophy. If I told you I believed in the viking gods Thor, Odin, Loki, and I believed I had to die with a sword in my hand to enter valhalla when I die, my beliefs are no more provable than what you believe. You believe what you do because you were told by someone to believe it, just as those vikings did. And to quote fight club, based on the state of the world, the problem of evil, the problem of hell, the holocaust, (insert long lists of horrible things that happen on this earth) “in all probability God hates you!”

    Reply

    why do you god-nuts persist in referring to your mythological creature as a ‘he’? does this creature have male genitalia? if so, your outré biblical nescience that declares you were all “made in ‘his’ image” categorically eliminates all femmes which comprise more than half the population of sapiens… as well as the billions of other life forms essential to this planet’s survival. so where do you propose to fit the rest of us non-entities into your gormless ‘creation plan’?

    Reply

    Sure but those are faith-based beliefs, not evidence-based.

    Reply

    well, speaking in terms of science these aren’t really fact based are they? They’re more theoretical. so with the god story, you could say it’s more metaphorical (poetic) account of the big bang and evolution. instead of taking the content literal you could read it as a process over time. instead of closing our minds off of peoples belief systems, perhaps we can learn from them. science is a western concept that is very young will change over time and in a few hundred years if humanity survives, some of our “facts” will be proven false. yet, the stories will remain. or something crazy like that.

    Reply

    I could tell you personal stories of my life and how Our Creator has worked in it, but that is something I choose not to do on the network. However, I do believe in miracles as I have cried out to God in my time of need and He has responded, knowing that I did need a miracle because of my lack of faith at the time and my husband witnessed it which also brought both of us to our knees. The problem here is that many look to man for the answers while His Spirit, when asked, will respond in ways that will astound you. That is what Faith is.

    Reply

    This universe, planet, cosmos, EVERYTHING is created by intelligent design. The fact that we can only copy the design or imitate what was created, should be a clue that there is a GOD who created the Heavens and Earth and everything in or on it. To date we have not created anything original, the light bulb imitates light, we study the birds to create an airplane, we can’t create a new being/thing we can only clone what already exists.
    Wake up scientists that doubt there is a GOD, because there is coming a time when we can’t explain away His existence with a “THEORY”.

    Reply
Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top

Whistleblowers
& Tipsters

Corruption in science?
Academic discrimination?
Research censorship?
Government cover-ups?

Undark wants to hear about it.

Email us at tips@undark.org, or visit our contact page for more secure options.