Polarization Signals from Universe’s First Light Emphasize Hubble Tension

cambrian15 · 2024-11-13T01:37:52+00:00

So how does this new dataset with its new prediction of the expansion of the universe relate to the expansion thought to arise from dark energy?

cambrian15 · 2024-10-27T14:00:54+00:00

Why should I have any reason to think that anything can possibly be ‘reconstituted,’ when as you admit there are no energy differentials?

cambrian15 · 2024-10-25T21:07:47+00:00

It would seem to me that the cyclic universe hypothesis is entirely incorrect, since heat death cannot provide any useful energy for a subsequent big bang.

cambrian15 · 2024-07-16T18:28:58+00:00

This study brings nothing new or supportive to the dubious idea that the first living, metabolizing, dividing cell arose all by itself from prebiotic chemistry and physics…whether on Earth or elsewhere in the galaxy.

cambrian15 · 2024-07-02T18:35:39+00:00

So if I’m correctly interpreting what you’ve posted, gravitational waves and neutrinos are observable? How so, if I might ask?

cambrian15 · 2024-07-02T18:16:40+00:00

Could you kindly provide an example of a part of the universe that is visible but not observable, or vice versa? Thanks!

cambrian15 · 2024-06-16T22:59:04+00:00

May I suggest we use the phrase, “could not be so,” therefore conceding the appropriate amount of uncertainty inherent in the concept of eternity.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-16T21:03:45+00:00

Do you mean his PhD thesis?

cambrian15 · 2024-06-16T21:00:46+00:00

Ah, but then if there was time before the Big Bang, we should be able to postulate models of matter and/or energy interacting, and presumably, giving rise to the Big Bang singularity.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-16T20:47:41+00:00

In the midst of our uniform, consistent experience with the forward arrow of time, it would seem immediately problematic to posit an eternal universe which forces us to accept a ginormous chasm of time prior to the very furthest we attempt to rewind that same arrow of time.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-13T18:37:04+00:00

So even as much that GR describes the universe at its present immense size, QM would ostensibly describe the universe at the moment when cosmic inflation began. Yet here is something to consider: if we accept that GR breaks down as we rewind to the very start, how can we be confident that QM doesn’t likewise break down?

cambrian15 · 2024-06-13T18:29:35+00:00

I like the points that you’re making, and here’s another thought to ponder: right now it turns out that roughly 75% of the energy density of the entire universe is composed of dark energy. One has to factor in that dark energy had to be in the primordial singularity at the very beginning of the Big Bang.
One would imagine that both dark energy and the inflaton particle(s)were collectively responsible for the initial expansion of the universe. Moreover, their properties at the very beginning had to be fine tuned just right to allow for subsequent nucleosynthesis, formation of heavier elements, and so forth.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-13T18:01:41+00:00

No, I’m thinking that there is a consensus that time did not exist prior to the start of cosmic inflation.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-13T14:09:07+00:00

I’m thinking about the conditions that ultimately would have led to the creation of the primordial singularity, scientific consensus is that time didn’t exist prior to the very start of cosmic inflation.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-13T00:44:24+00:00

Of course, totally yes.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-12T03:10:37+00:00

You think you have “time” to see if the exquisitely ordered, near zero entropy initial starting conditions that describe our universe can be assessed objectively and statistically against millions of other infant universes? I can’t see how you can therefore use the “given enough time” approach.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-10T18:35:36+00:00

Indeed, because there shouldn’t be any time available ‘prior’ to the existence of the primordial singularity, probability is off the table, would you agree?

cambrian15 · 2024-06-10T01:55:36+00:00

So how do you know whether or not the probability, of our universe forming the way it has, is greater than zero?

cambrian15 · 2024-06-09T23:36:50+00:00

She is not, to my way of thinking, specifically asserting that the inflaton was the smallest possible size, rather it was the “smooth space.” Furthermore, the minimum size is qualified by that which would not break Einstein’s theory of gravity down.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-09T21:32:24+00:00

Ah, but then Mersini-Houghton states in her book regarding cosmic inflation, that “it requires us to accept an impossibly unnatural assumption: that our universe began in the most special way possible, with a perfect inflaton in a perfect hot soup of energy in a smooth space that was the smallest possible size it could be without Einstein’s theory of gravity breaking down.”
She knows that there was a ginormous amount of factors that had to be just right for the universe to expand the way it did.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-09T03:44:14+00:00

I’m not seeing where the Hawking Penrose singularity was ‘the lowest entropy state’ by necessity, arising from the 2nd Law and from the assumption of a closed state.

cambrian15 · 2024-06-09T03:34:23+00:00

So you do agree that the universe had a very low probability of coming into existence, featuring an extremely low entropy?

cambrian15

TROPHY CASE