Hi, Roger. I was just thinking out loud about a way to reconcile the theory with Genesis 1, not stating my own opinions. But I’ll play along …
Why does the chaos need a creator? As @pevaquark has emphasized repeatedly, no cosmologist believes that “everything came from nothing.” What existed before time t=0 in the Big Bang? Not matter in the conventional sense, but whatever that “chaos” was, perhaps it had always been there, just as God himself had always been there? This is not confusing Creator with creation, nor is it saying that creation and Creator are one and the same. Rather, it is simply saying that neither God nor the chaos that existed prior to t=0 had a beginning.
The observable universe had a beginning when God spoke and gave the chaos form. That universe exists in time and space and is finite, in the sense that we can “see” to the edge of it, but what exists beyond that edge? Whatever it is, is it an infinite something, or a finite something? Will the expanding universe run into a limit, a “wall” of sorts, beyond which it cannot go? All this is to say, I see no reason to believe that the chaos that existed prior to t=0 was not infinite in age and scope. That God then took that chaos and shaped it into the wondrous beauty that surrounds us is still a miracle worthy of veneration.
As far as I can see, conceiving of things in this way does not diminish God and is entirely biblical. Not saying this is my conception, but if I keep going, I might talk myself into believing it to be the case.
If singularities are not good and need to be avoided, then what do we do with Black Holes? \
If we can make one exception (which is not based on the Christian world view,) why not two? Especially when we are discussing the first second of the Beginning of the universe.
Here we are talking about one of two infinities, an infinite universe or an infinite God. Since there is no evidence that the universe is infinite and every evidence that God is infinite, I would think that by far the best bet is God.
Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, re-normalization, and instability of a hydrogen atom predicted by the Larmor formula. Some theories, such as the theory of loop quantum gravity suggest that singularities may not exist. This is also true for such classical unified field theories as the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations. Further in a dynamic Newtonian adaptation of the equations of gravity (DNAg) the singularity is entirely avoided. The idea can be stated in the form that due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which the force of gravity no longer continues to increase as the distance between the masses becomes shorter, or alternatively that interpenetrating particle waves mask gravitational effects that would be felt at a distance.
Maybe it’s just my head cold but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that singularity = infinity = God (but only in the singularity at the beginning of the universe as predicted by the incomplete equations of GR that do not include quantum effects that we’ve established already are extremely important at this time)?
At the very least, I would hope that you can begin to appreciate how I would see infinity/singularities as someone trained in physics- it’s a problem and a sign that an equation/law/theory is incomplete.
No one is arguing against this. What I said is that the word generally does not mean never. It means usually. The beginning of the universe is not a usual situation. It is a singular situation.
It seems to me that this is close to what I have been saying, which is that the strong nuclear force cancels out gravitation.
The equations of GR are not incomplete. It is just that they are not the theory of everything, which is the found in the unification of all forces. Why must relativity include quantum physics. then even as it does not include quantum physics now.
One theory which I read above was that the Big Bang began with all four forces united and balanced . They only became separated one by one during this less that second time period
God is infinite and God alone is infinite. I believe that you said that a singularity in math was an infinity. The Big Bang theory says that the universe originally was very small, infinitely dense, a singularity. There is a connection between the three.
Please do not be deceived into thinking that generally means never or always. It means usually. A singularity is appropriate at the beginning of the universe, a most unusual situation.
Additional Comment: The is a big difference between a singularity as a calculation which is often the sign of a problem, and a singularity like a Black Hole which is not a calculation. The singularity at the Beginning of the universe is the second kind.
All of this cosmic evolution after the inflationary epoch can be rigorously described and modeled by the ΛCDM model of cosmology, which uses the independent frameworks of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s General Relativity. There is no well-supported model describing the action prior to 10−15 seconds or so. Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed to break this barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.
This is a quote from the Wikipedia. The lack of a clear model for the beginning of the universe does not mean that it did not happen. It just means that we do not understand it as well as we would like.
Just because we don’t know for sure does not mean that God did not create the universe, particularly because what we do know does point to God as the Creator.
Science depends on the universe being rationality structured. Philosophically the view that the universe is rationally structured depends on the universe being created by a Rational Creator.
Shall I speak or remain silent? Certainly sometimes silence is the best option.
So because there is a singular singularity then it is somehow different? You don’t that it is a singular singularity! There are roughly 10^80 protons let’s say in the universe and they all have a singularity according to the incomplete Coulomb’s Law. But maybe there are 10^500 universes that all have singularities. You don’t know and neither do I. But anyways, that is silly to say that because GR (that doesn’t even describe very small things well at all- it fails in every way shape and form when quantum effects are important)- so IF GR predicts a singularity for a scenario that it cannot even describe accurately, then it is not anything significant beyond the fact that the equations are incomplete to describe small things of which the universe once was.
It doesn’t cancel it out. But what were you saying again about these forces or what was your point?
That’s pretty reasonable given the fact that we have seen the electromagnetic and weak force become one at the high energies involved in particle physics (becoming the electroweak force). Something like this:
Okay.
Did I? There’s a reason I left mathematics and went to Physics. My math colleage loves infinity. I don’t like it for the reasons I’ve explained here (it means there’s something incomplete about a law/theory/etc.).
Yes.
Yeah I don’t know about this one. I mean if you plug in that the radius equals zero then yes, you get infinite density but again the equations don’t even work at this point. The Big Bang Theory again for the I don’t know twentieth time does NOT describe the beginning of the universe. It only describes very well what happened after it began expanding.
Sorry you lost me here.
Let me fix this sentence:
‘A singularity only appears at the beginning of the universe because the equations of General Relativity cannot accurate describe quantum effects.’
It’s not? Where do you think what we know about black holes mostly comes from? Ah yes, the equations of General Relativity.
What you have described is a paradox in the way that math and physics views the world. Math lives infinities, while physics does not. For some reason you seem compelled to resolve this paradox in favor no infinities, while other people do not.
There is a huge danger in arbitrarily resolving paradoxes our of Reality, because Reality is too complex to be explained without paradoxes. You can’t say that GR does not work with quantum physics because it does work with quantum physics. Maybe we need to understand it better, but you cfannot say that something doesn’t work because we don’t understand exactly how it works.
We know about black holes from black holes, which are real observable physical entities, as opposed to dark matter and energy. Humankind pays millions of dollars to build telescopes on earth and in space to study and observe Black Holes and other cosmological phenomena. Scientists do not just sit in Ivory Towers spinning mathematical theories about them.
On then basic of there observations we know much about the Big Bang and that knowledge indicates there was the abrupt appearance of the space/time continuum. That is what you and others have failed to explain away.
There is no physical evidence to justify saying that every proton has a singularity. There is no physical evidence for a multiverse. According to the rules of science that say that there must be physical evidence to back up such claims, I do know this as well as that the earth’s moon is not made of green cheese.
