One interesting sign of energy in space is that particles may be detected coming in and out of existence in a vacuum. As Einstein noted, energy = mass. With particles coming in and out of existence there really isn't much of another explanation than that there is energy in space. So, when physicists note that there is vacuum energy it shouldn't be upsetting. "Flat universe" means that Euclidean geometry applies - as opposed to a curved universe. It's weird to think of three dimensional space being curved, but ... sorry! At a time before inflation the physical forces were not separate. "Laws of physics were passed at this time"? That's a cool expression, but it was more that as density decreased they could become separate. Inflation refers to a specific period in the early universe where expansion was extreme. Evidence from various sources indicates that our current universe is expanding - just not anywhere near as fast as in the period called inflation. In fact, in 1998 it was discovered that the rate of expansion is increasing right now. These aren't "beliefs" in the religious sense. They are what has been found by analyzing evidence. It's subject to change were physicists to make some new discovery - like they did in 1998 when it was determined that the rate of expansion of our universe is increasing. Yes, there are lots of questions for which science doesn't have an answer. Who in their right mind would suggest humans know it all? The correct answer to those questions is "I don't know". But, it's often true that physicists will discuss possible answers along with how/whether an approach for testing has been figure out. I hope some physicist other there can help come up with a more accurate description that remains simple enough to understand without taking a course in physics.
The energy in the vacuum of "empty" space is the largely uniform spread of photons that constitute the microwave background radiation (MBR) which is at 2.7 degrees kelvin (2.7 degrees above absolute zero), IIRC. I don't know what bearing the quarks popping in & out of existence has on the energy issue. A while back there was news about the universe not being a closed system. Another aspect is the way some particles can sometimes be split or spontaneously decay, e.g. a photon can beak down into an antineutrino and an electron, if I recall the labels correctly (doubtful).
I think Stenger is worse than that (given this description). His direction gives too much credence to solutions from theoretical physics, where there is no testing of the real world to confirm whether these paper models are for real. The result is that any acceptance of these ideas is pretty much indistinguishable from religious belief. How am I supposed to pitch that a Christian should not believe that "god did it", but should instead believe in quantum fluctuation and waveform energy tunneling - which can't be tested and is thus removed from scientific method AND which depends on quantum mechanics which is not particularly understood . Plus quantum mechanics can't explain gravity, giving us two different models of physics. And, all this coming after having pretty much dumped "string theory" (the last untestable wonder drug) into the round file. I'd rather stick with science - scientific method, where scientists gather evidence, falsify hypotheses, publish peer reviewed papers. I respect theoretical physics, but once one tries to justify denial of the role of a creator with theoretical physics it starts sounding arbitrary. I'd rather say I don't know when I don't know and that science doesn't have an answer when it doesn't. It's the truth. Plus, the path of presenting these untested ideas sounds like science has a pat answer for everything - obviously false.
It sounds like you are arguing that particles aren't actually going between energy and mass, but are simply breaking down to different particles and then recombining. I hadn't thought of that, but my understanding has been that science considers that these particles actually decay to energy, not just really small particles. I'm going to have to look into that! Thanks!
Is the discussion about religion, now? I'd be very interested to know why an "intelligent designer" that is eternal and creates universes containing trillions of galaxies would need to know that you, an infinitesimal speck in comparison to creation, are obeying it's moral dictates and punishing you for your naughty behavior or lack of sincere worship of its mightiness. Going back to science. So, the universe cannot simply pop out of existence or from an infinitely compressed point, that's just too weird, but an eternal "intelligent designer" explains everything, therefore it is scientific.
Read the Bible and books by Bible scholars and you will learn, if only you wish to learn. No, you did NOT go "back to science." You failed to explain the origin of this "infinitely compressed point." THAT is the whole point. You missed it intentionally. Nobody said God is "scientific." You missed that intentionally as well. I suggest you watch Professor John Lennox on YouTube.com in his fifty-seven minute lecture "A Matter of Gravity."
So, there's not really a compelling answer. I'm not against faith, I just don't have it in regards to an invisible supreme being with a need for obeisance. And, the OP fails to explain the origin of the Intelligent Designer. If the ID can be thought of as internal, then so can the universe. When we get into trying to explain "God", we get into religion. There's no science behind it because it's an inherently bias toward deification. Those who promote the "Intelligent Designer" idea aren't just throwing that out there. They have an inherent desire to prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, father-like supreme being that cares about what you do in the bedroom and grants you His mercy if you acknowledge his alleged child.
Of course, because YOU deem yourself so much smarter than this "invisible supreme being" as you call God. You as leader would not want respect and people to trust and follow you, for their own good. No, they could simply do as they damn well wanted and flip you off, right? 1. You misunderstand, intentionally, everything. The universe is demonstrably NOT eternal, or if you wish "internal" (sic). 2. "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox in the YouTube lecture I referred you to. Again and again, you misunderstand and misstate science. Atheists study the Anthropic Principle, which is also compelling scientific evidence of our Creator, which you will no doubt misunderstand and misstate as you repeatedly do. Your maliciousness and hatred toward Nature's God are harming you and you don't even realize it.
I agree with what you have said here. There isn't anything "scientific" about postulating an intelligent designer. I just don't believe progress can come from questions like "Who created the creator?". The Abrahamic religions consider the creator to be infinite as a foundational assumption. Science isn't capable of disputing that, as science has no method of disproving anything about the supernatural and has no evidence that this universe came from nothing. I think we're better off not mixing religion and science.
Yes, this universe is not eternal. But, there is no evidence concerning whether the environment that kicked off this universe is eternal. I would suggest that the anthropic principle is philosophical and does not get used in science as evidence of any scientific theory. Suggesting it is "evidence of our creator" is a purely religious argument. Science has nothing to say about god. It does not have the tools for addressing anything supernatural.
That would be a strawman. There are lots of people smarter than me. So far, none have demand that I worship them for their intelligence, andif they did, I'd consider them a fool. There's a difference between trust and fellowship, and threatening eternal damnation to those who don't obey. As for respect, it must be earned. What has this supreme being done to earn respect and how does respect convert to worship? You know this for a fact? And, right out of the realm of science we go. Calling "God" a "He" suggests a number of biases toward one particular religion. It's the same problem OP has. He doesn't want to imagine an intelligent designer, he wants to imagine the interventionist God of the Bible. I'm sure your big, bad Skydaddy is going to punish me for it. Really, I just like to trigger those who claim to be advancing science when, what they are doing, is trying to prove their deity as written in their holy book. Maybe you need a safe space.
NOBODY "demands" that you worship anyone. There you go again, putting your Talking Points into other people's mouths. Very dishonest of you. Going to church, worshipping, and donating are all voluntary and as Professor Arthur Brooks makes very clear in his book, Who Really Cares, atheists and Leftists are very stingy, on average, compared to people of faith and conservatives. Fact, not mere speculation or boasting. You never entered the realm of science, so you can't go "right out." I'm never triggered by atheist Talking Points. I simply refute them. It is the godless Left that has been crying and rioting since Hillary lost the election. Antifa much?
Donations?? Why are you bringing up the method churches use to maintain their staff, buildings and grounds? Plus, you're getting close to bringing up the issue of churches spending on politics, without paying taxes due for political organizations. If you want to discuss how to fund a social safety net, then start a thread. It has nothing to do with the OP. I'm continually surprised at your abrassive behavior and confusion of science and religion.
False accusation.. this is a scientific examination of a scientific theory. More false accusations. I am trying to examine the questionable science behind the big bang theory, not get drawn into the phony, 'Atheists vs Christians!', flame war. Then why do you keep addressing, 'religion!'? Your abrasive behavior is obviously motivated by religious zeal, not a quest for scientific methodology. The topic is the big bang theory. Religious deflections and ad hom attacks only expose you as a progressive indoctrinee, not a scientific minded, analytical thinking person.
It can be measured as a pressure. Unless you can see subatomic particles with your eyes, you won't see them. And making such a comment shows you are fantastically out of your league. If you want to learn, then study science. Don't make inane arguments in public forums. That is just crackpottery. And you should really drop the false claim of "engineer". Clearly you are not an engineer as you don't know elementary science.
There are TWO different VERSIONS of the same story which any cop will tell you is a sure sign that someone is telling lies about what happened.
Back to the topic.. From the study referenced in the OP: WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies. So, a period of 'inflation', where the laws of physics were set aside for 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', occured, it is suggested. The entire universed exploded in an instant, filling millions of light years of space, allowing light and other waves continuity, so they can be seen, now, without having to wait billions of years for them to get here. But by what standard do you arbitrarily assign '13.77 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if you posit an inflation of 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', to expand it to its current condition? It could have been just millions, or even thousands.. why arbitrarily choose '13.77 billions!', when there is NO WAY of knowing how far back this 'inflation' took place? 'Tiny fluctuations grew to form galaxies!' Really? Can you not see the fantastic speculation going on here, dogmatically declared as 'science!'? And just HOW did this inflation allegedly happen, suspending all known natural laws? Trillions fold expansion in trillionths of a second? The acceleration to do this would vaporize any matter. This phenomenon cannot be observed, repeated, or any mechanism explained. It is a physical impossibility, yet is glibly declared as 'settled science!', and eager bobbleheads eat it up like candy. Is there no skepticism? Are we really that gullible, to accept the techno babble filled spinnings of agenda driven ideologues?
For starters the SINGULARITY was NOT a "particle". Secondly GRAVITY was the means of COMPRESSION into the Singularity. It was really just a Black Hole containing all matter/energy in the Universe. Ever used a hand bicycle pump? What happens when you pump hard? Can you feel the pump getting warmer in your hand? Compression of gases results in heat and this is how diesel engines ignite their fuel through compression. The Singularity was gravitational compression on a massive scale which in turn resulted in sufficient heat energy to blow it apart in a Big Bang event. The Cyclical Universe Model hypothesis takes all of these factors into account and what we are witnessing is the Expansion phase following the explosion. Eventually the Universe will expand to the point where it will have exhausted the energy and Gravity will take over and compress it back into another Singularity. Rinse and repeat, no imaginary "creators" needed!
This is all speculation.. fantastic imaginations of belief. You have no observable, repeatable tests to show this is even possible, yet glibly assert, 'it happened!' It is a religious belief about origins, no different than any other human imagination throughout history. You can posit the Cause as, gods, aliens, or natural processes, but it is a fantastic imagination, with no evidence. The universe exploded into infinite space, then it will compress (by gravity) back into a particle, even though it is hurtling outward in infinite space. Gravity will overcome inertia? How? Why hasn't gravity already sucked us back into a particle? Why does it have to wait 'billions of years!', to compress back to a particle? There is no mechanism to do this. It violates all known laws of physics. It is a fantastic religious belief, nothing more.
Yes, this is the Hope. 'Someone!' out there is Really Smart, and knows how this all fits together. Us mere mortals cannot possibly understand the complexities, and should just Trust the mysterious experts, who can't be bothered with actually explaining or demonstrating with sound scientific methodology, what their theories entail. We can't explain it, understand it, or observe it, but the Really Smart People told us it was 'settled science!', so it must be true. Progressive Indoctrination relies on trust and gullibility. Skepticism, critical thinking, and sound scientific methodology, are its worse enemies.
