tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post4481520202197829204..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: The Significance of the BGV TheoremMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-54000974958280269292020-05-04T00:37:15.253-05:002020-05-04T00:37:15.253-05:00if I am wrong anywhere please correct me. And I wo...if I am wrong anywhere please correct me. And I would love it if you could cite some papers regarding this approach.Tabish Tahahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13641698367095823534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-67626654017360803632020-04-28T18:13:34.767-05:002020-04-28T18:13:34.767-05:00Yes! I have read some papers.
1. They argue that...Yes! I have read some papers. <br /><br />1. They argue that such a system would need incomprehensible amount of fine tuning for such a system to exist for indefinite time in the past which raises the problem of cosmic design.<br /><br />2. They also argue that such systems are quantum mechanically unstable and hence will collapse by quantum tunneling to zero radius. So initially even if this universe is perfectly fine-tuned, it will be destabilized by quantum fluctuations and will either start inflating or collapse to a singularity. I read this from a paper by Alex. Vilenkin<br /><br />I think that the instability is due to the uncertainty principle which is the core of Quantum Mechanics, so we cannot have, at least given our current understanding, an eternal stable QM system.<br /><br /><br />But if I am wrong anywhere please correct me. And I would love it if you could cite some papers regarding this approach.Tabish Tahahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13641698367095823534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-66024100753196663532020-04-28T14:46:54.878-05:002020-04-28T14:46:54.878-05:00As I said, this has been explored and hs problems....As I said, this has been explored and hs problems. Have you looked at the papers on this idea to see what has already been published and the reasons for the limited lifetime of the system?Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-39209455568030182702020-04-26T21:12:16.955-05:002020-04-26T21:12:16.955-05:00Hello Sir
This QM system generates universe bubbl...Hello Sir<br /><br />This QM system generates universe bubbles purposelessly and randomly. So given infinite amount of time, it is possible that one such bubble (out of other infinite bubbles) experienced a very aggressive inflationary expansion (by chance) and avoided the problem of collapsing.<br /><br />In order to refute this "Mechanical God", you will have to prove that this entire QM System itself cannot survive for an infinite time. <br /><br />So that even if the universe bubbles produced by this Quantum System make it through inflation then still their Mother Quantum System would have to had a beginning.Tabish Tahahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13641698367095823534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-42143011994472837292020-04-26T19:45:13.235-05:002020-04-26T19:45:13.235-05:00This approach has been explored. The problem is th...This approach has been explored. The problem is that all such bubbles are unstable and cannot endure for an indefinite time. They have to have a very limited lifetime which makes this idea unacceptable to solve the problem.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-26240464139494112902020-04-18T02:26:36.911-05:002020-04-18T02:26:36.911-05:00Hello,
I have found a way to avoid the beginning ...Hello,<br /><br />I have found a way to avoid the beginning of the universe.<br /><br />What if we devise an unknown stable quantum system (eternal cosmic egg) that exists since eternity and is generating space-time bubbles/singularities from the eternity past and our universe is one such bubble?<br /><br />Note that this quantum system resides in a different dimension of space and time which is distinct from the dimensions of our cosmic space and time and the universe bubbles generated by it have different dimensions of space-time which are distinct from the space-time dimensions of this quantum system. I know a little difficult to follow.<br /><br />The idea of a quantum system of space-time dimensions-A giving birth to a mini-universe with space-time dimensions-B may seem very difficult to grasp but it is not impossible as the idea of God giving birth to the universe ex nihilo is also very difficult to grasp. I know that this model is highly speculative and cannot be empirically tested in any way whatsoever but the idea of God is also extremely speculative and impossible to verify empirically.<br /><br />This is not a multiverse theory and the proponent of this model is not claiming that our universe came from nothing. He is just trying to make his own mechanical god to avoid God.<br /><br />This system avoids any possible problem with its mechanics that one can propose:<br /><br /><br /> Since this quantum system is stable, the quantum fluctuations will not push it to expand or contract.<br /><br /> This quantum system is constantly generating space-time bubbles since eternity and hence the need for a personal agent evaporates. It is not like it does nothing forever and then suddenly start producing universes.<br /><br /> This quantum system is stable and hence it would endure for an indefinite time in the past and the problem of either producing universes from eternity past or not-at-all evaporates.<br /><br /> The problem of time coming into existence as itself a temporal process resolves because this system has a different dimension of time which is distinct from our cosmic time.<br /><br /> Since this system resides in a different dimension of space which is distinct from our space, it would be wrong to say that the term ‘spaceless void’ is self-refuting.<br /><br /> The universe bubbles generated by this quantum system don’t delve inside it, as they have different dimensions of space and time which are distinct from that of the system itself; rather they exist outside of this system having different space dimensions. Thus, given infinite past time as these universe bubbles expand, they will not collide and coalesce with one another. <br /><br /><br />We can refute this speculation from a philosophical perspective by simply claiming that this quantum system has been generating bubbles since eternity, which means there has been an actually infinite number of changes(each generation is a change), but an infinite regress of changes is not possible regardless of which dimension of time we are talking about. <br /><br />But can we refute this from a scientific perspective?<br /><br />Please help me!Tabish Tahahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13641698367095823534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-30034714982844096322018-12-02T21:53:18.665-06:002018-12-02T21:53:18.665-06:00The spacetime theorems of general relativity indic...The spacetime theorems of general relativity indicate that time as we know it came into existence just as space came into existence. Since we are so confined to space and time we don't understand experientially what that means but that is what the math says. The BGV theorem says that the universe is not infinite in the past, which seems to indicate the timeline we know is finite and had a beginning. I don't think it makes common sense because we can't comprehend existence without space or time but it does make mathematical sense.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-3534325733285889992018-12-02T16:18:41.858-06:002018-12-02T16:18:41.858-06:00Does it really make sense to say the universe had ...Does it really make sense to say the universe had a "beginning" or are we really talking about whether time is finite or not? To say that "time had a beginning" seems nonsensical to me. A finite timeline makes enough sense, and they intuitively seem like the same thing, but they aren't, are they?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09830098681532431228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-1159645024007467702018-10-07T09:59:35.561-05:002018-10-07T09:59:35.561-05:00"I was certain that the people he was debatin..."I was certain that the people he was debating were merely arguing from what "could be" rather than anything with any observational support. It is great to hear an expert in the field verify this..<br /><br />Since WLC is in exactly the same boat, do you have a point?<br /><br />WLC does NOT know about the subject. <br /><br />Basically this article is saying we don't know therefor the BGV stands even though the authors of it says its not relevant to the universe we do live in as it IS based on purely classical physics. It was just an intellectual exercise that does not tell us anything about the beginning of our universe. WLC has had BLEEP fits over that FACT.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007802378798223880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-80843627481244657612018-03-19T15:56:43.933-05:002018-03-19T15:56:43.933-05:00"Audrey Mithani, come to a similar conclusion..."Audrey Mithani, come to a similar conclusion in a paper titled, "Did the universe have a beginning?" Their answer is, "At this point, it seems the answer to this question is probably yes."6 Any other conclusion draws not on what we know, but on what we don't know."<br />Awesome article. I'm a software engineer, so don't know anything about physics or cosmology really. All I know is in today's age, I'll need answers for everything atheists peddle when my young kids are older. <br />To learn this subject, I have been watching many of William Lane Craig's debates. All the atheists in the comments always insist that Craig simply doesn't understand cosmology or physics.<br />I was certain that the people he was debating were merely arguing from what "could be" rather than anything with any observational support. It is great to hear an expert in the field verify this..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02292365595052283712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-52835255641395630042017-02-02T00:29:49.693-06:002017-02-02T00:29:49.693-06:00Yes thank you! You make incredibly complex ideas v...Yes thank you! You make incredibly complex ideas very accessible to people like me who don't share your genius. Thank you very much. Ferinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07552551132983722994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-3357411658757256972017-01-28T18:53:53.909-06:002017-01-28T18:53:53.909-06:00Excellent work! Love reading about your work! Excellent work! Love reading about your work! rikmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060007178464116071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-59798377960189325272017-01-28T14:41:33.368-06:002017-01-28T14:41:33.368-06:00Dr. Strauss, thank you for posting this. I look fo...Dr. Strauss, thank you for posting this. I look forward to your analyses of Sean Carroll's and Lawrence Krauss' proposed models. Faithful Thinkershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.com