The Instigator
Mentalista
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
nektn99
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science doesn't support the claim that the Universe began to exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 691 times Debate No: 118678
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Mentalista

Pro

The Big Bang is often presented as the creation of everything (including space and time) from nothing, But actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was smaller, Extremely hot and dense when it was young. The model makes certain predictions, Such as the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, The expansion of the universe, The abundance of elements, Galactic evolution and distribution, Primordial gas clouds, Age of stars, Time dilation in supernova brightness curves, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, Etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn"t going away.

But the Big Bang theory doesn't predict that space-time began to exist. Outdated Singularity theorems based only on General Relativity predict an absolute beginning (a singularity is a point of infinite density, Pressure and temperature). General Relativity describes the universe very well only at large scales, But does not work at the sub-atomic scale, Where gravity becomes insignificant, And Quantum Mechanics has the upper hand.

The idea that the Universe began at a singularity of space and time is no longer regarded as the most likely because of the studies that have been made of quantum cosmology. The singularity can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account. The reasoning is simple, As Hawking and Barrow both explain in their most recent works. (1) Quantum Mechanics has proved that at the Compton Radius, Matter and energy no longer have any definite location, But exist at any random location within that radius at any given time, As defined by the appropriate wave function. Therefore, If there is no fixed location but instead a cloud of probability-space, There can never be a singularity, Which entails a single fixed location. (2) Quantum Mechanics has proved that all energy is quantized, In other words it is not infinitely divisible. Gravity is a form of energy, Therefore it must be quantized. But if gravity is quantized, Then there must be a smallest space and time over which gravity can act, Such that when you get smaller than a single "graviton" the force of gravity no longer functions, Which means the gravitational force will stop operating before a singularity is produced.

It's often claimed that the BGV theorem proves the universe "cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning". But what the theorem actually says is that (1) if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), Then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, If we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, We inevitably come to a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down"that is, Where the universe is no longer expanding. This is true for all particles, Except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, There may be some rare particles whose histories are infinitely long. The rare particles have worldlines [trajectories in space-time] that extend indefinitely into "the past, " and can prevent there being a "time" at which the universe is not expanding/inflating. The fact that they are very rare does not make them unimportant, Because they nonetheless thread an infinite physical volume. Most importantly, (2) it's naive to conclude that any result dealing with classical spacetimes can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe. The moment of the Big Bang is a place where quantum gravity is supremely important. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin results are simply not about quantum gravity. (3) Another important thing to point out is that the BGV theorem applies only to inflationary models. It says Inflation probably cannot go infinitely into the past, And require physics other than inflationary models to describe the boundary condition. This paper is a direct response to physicists who attempt to use inflationary models to describe an eternal universe. There is a difference between "past-eternal inflation" and "non-singular cosmology". Non-singular models present solutions without a singularity. One example is the Emergent Universe scenario. The point ought to be clear: the BGV Theorem does not say that the universe began to exist; it says that inflationary models are past-incomplete, And require new physics to describe the boundary condition.

It's also claimed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves the universe can't be eternal, Because the tendency of particles in closed systems to approach equilibrium (entropy) would lead to heat death, But this law is not absolute. Statistical mechanics implies that, Given sufficient time, Systems near equilibrium will spontaneously fluctuate into lower-entropy states. The time development of such fluctuations has been studied, Especially the very large fluctuations relevant to cosmology. Under fairly general assumptions, The most likely history of a fluctuation out of equilibrium is simply the CPT conjugate of the most likely way a system relaxes back to equilibrium. This idea is used to elucidate the space-time structure of various fluctuations in de Sitter space and thermal anti-de Sitter space. Boltzmann teaches us that any system, No matter how large, Will eventually fluctuate into a lower-entropy state if we wait long enough. So what if we wait forever?

As far as we currently know, It"s reasonable to imagine that the Universe does last forever, And that it is always fluctuating. An universe dominated by a positive cosmological constant (dark energy that never fades away) behaves a lot like a box of gas at a fixed temperature. Our universe seems to be headed in that direction; if it stays there, We will have fluctuations for all eternity. Which means that empty space (with vacuum energy) will eventually fluctuate into " well, Anything at all, Really (like a Boltzmann Brain). Including an entire universe.

Several cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll and Anthony Aguirre have already explained that it is possible that the process of removing the largest amount of energy and particles possible from a normal space results in a different configuration of quantum fields with a local minimum of energy (this local minimum is called a "false vacuum"). Despite the name the vacuum state still has quantum fields. And QFs have the power to generate quantum particles. Quantum particles are excitations which deviate from a minimal potential energy state. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, These particles are not deterministic (the creation of these particles have a material cause (i. E, Space/quantum fields), However, No efficient cause) and they have different levels of energy. A false vacuum is somewhat, But not entirely, Stable. If quantum tunneling occur (or the creation of high-energy particles), A bubble of lower-energy vacuum could come to exist, And catalyze the conversion of the universe to a lower energy state in a volume expanding at nearly the speed of light.

We know Quantum Fields and Particles exist because there is evidence to confirm their existence, Such as Spontaneous Emission, The Casimir Effect and the Lamb Shift. In addition to that, Quantum tunneling has been known for over fifty years and is utilized in the scanning tunneling microscope, Which is an instrument capable of producing a digital image of individual atoms. Indeed, Without quantum tunneling we would not be here. By means of quantum tunneling the protons in the sun are able to penetrate the barrier produced by their mutual electrical repulsion and merge with neutrons to produce helium nuclei by the process called nuclear fusion. This is the source of energy in the sun and all the stars in the sky.

The Emergent Scenario predicts there was an small patch of space; a mini-universe (the initial static state can be chosen to have a radius above the Planck scale, So this model can even avoid a quantum gravity regime, Whatever the true quantum gravity theory may be) that stayed at an Einstein static state past eternally (this state is isentropic due to a perfect fluid, Therefore, It's not subject to the 2nd law/entropy) supported by a scalar field (Inflaton Field) which is located in a false vacuum (`6; = `6;F ). The universe begins to evolve when, By quantum tunneling, The scalar field decays into a state of true vacuum. Then, A small bubble of a new phase of field value `6;W can form, And expand as it converts volume from high to low vacuum energy and feeds the liberated energy into the kinetic energy of the bubble wall. Inside the bubble, Space-like surfaces of constant `6; are homogeneous surfaces of constant negative curvature. If the potential has a suitable form, Inflation and reheating may occur in the interior of the bubble as the field rolls from `6;W to the true minimum at `6;T. This, Eventually, Causes the expansion of the Einstein static space-time.

This is how Alexander Vilenkin describes it: "In the Emergent Scenario, The universe stayed at an Einstein static state past eternally. This universe can be thought of as a "cosmic egg" [of space-time] that exists forever until it breaks open [through quantum tunneling] to produce an expanding universe. "
nektn99

Con

Yes, It's called the big bang.
Debate Round No. 1
Mentalista

Pro

Read the argument I presented. The Big Bang doesn't prove the Universe began to exist. It could be eternal into the past before expanding.

Repeating: This is how Alexander Vilenkin describes it: "In the Emergent Scenario, The universe stayed at an Einstein static state past eternally. This universe can be thought of as a "cosmic egg" [of space-time] that exists forever until it breaks open [through quantum tunneling] to produce an expanding universe.

The Emergent Universe scenario is an extension of the Big Bang theory, Which is incomplete.
nektn99

Con

nektn99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mentalista

Pro

What a boring debate.
nektn99

Con

nektn99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mentalista

Pro

Mentalista forfeited this round.
nektn99

Con

nektn99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mentalista

Pro

Mentalista forfeited this round.
nektn99

Con

nektn99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
Vi, Just because you don't understand something (you probably have never really studied them) does not mean they are nonsense. Again i will remind you that nonsense is a compound word.
Posted by SorghumJohnson 3 years ago
SorghumJohnson
I agree with SonofCharl. Without a concise definition of what is meant by "the universe, " the proponent of the topic is able to expand or contract the definition so as to always claim the upper hand in the debate. Current theory holds that the "known" universe is expanding, And space along with it. Whether expansion is open or closed is as yet unknown, Depending on the mass of the "known" universe. There is also the question of what is meant by the loosely employed term "science. " In order for science to actually "support" something, There has to be some invocation of the "scientific method, " which is patently impossible when it comes to astrophysics. Thus, It's theory, Not science, At outset. Science supports Einstein's mass-energy equivalence because there is experimental data to support it. What experimental data is there to support the existence of the universe, Relative to its beginning?

If the proponent can always retreat into the distinction between theory and science, And hasn't actually explicitly defined the loose term "the universe, " how can he lose?

I, For one, Would never accept a role in this debate as stated. I like a level playing field.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
But i agree with the headline, Many scientists believe there was energy before the big bang. .
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
The expansion non sense. . The universe was, "smaller". . As if it has ends or limits
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Sonofcharl
@Mentalista

What are you actually saying?

And what are you actually for or against in this debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.