Hi there,
Well in this week's New Scientist they said it and here is a link to an
online article that says the same thing:
The quantum universe had no beginning.
Since they don't want me talking on the Evolution subsection of this forum, I thought I might discuss it here.
- What are the implications for time?
- What are the implications for the end of time?
- What are the implications for Evolution?
- Does the fact that they said there was a big bang (and expected us to believe it) have absolutely any consequences for the Devil (or the fact that in the exact same manner he expects us to believe in his theory of Evolution)?
Not really sure what you will say - theistic evolutionists may need to explain themselves scripturally in a way that creationists do not...
Thoughts?
I was reading about this the other day. Here is the actual paper if anyone is interested:
Cosmology from quantum potential
While researching I found an article that talks about how the paper actually doesn't claim there is no big bang, just that there is no big bang singularity, which is not to say the same thing. The paper does in fact say it gives a better understanding to the big bang, along with a number of things. What the model concludes is that there is no initial singularity due to the application of what is known as the Raychaudhuri equation. As opposed to using the classical model of the equation, they add quantum tweaks.
I believe what they are saying is that since there was no singularity there was this eternal 'quantum potential' that eventually collapsed into the big bang. What the paper also suggests is a cosmological constant, which is a problematic concept itself, which the author refers to at the end of paper by brushing it off as " For the cosmological constant problem at late times on the other hand, quantum gravity effects are practically absent and can be safely ignored. We hope to report on these and related issues elsewhere." So its not as if this model doesn't propose a set of whole other conflicting issues. It DOES.
The model is also described as "basic" and is more of a proof of a concept than much more significance. Even then, this model isn't "new" as many inflation models suggest very similar predictions, and the idea of an eternal or infinite universe has been around for centuries.
I'm not sue of the implications of time as related to this model. I think it may tend to steer away from the concept of spacetime, since after all its claiming the universe had no beginning, which does seem to imply they mean time had always existed. The model I don't think mentions an end to time. Infinite can mean no beginning but an end. This no singularity model doesn't falsify the theory of evolution, either. It even refers to cosmological evolution, which though is obviously different from biological evolution. Regardless, this model is not talking about evolution and doesn't argue its wrong or didn't occur. And do you think that scientists claim there was a big bang have certain consequences for the devil? If so, what are those consequences exactly? I would say not, since for some believers it patches the bridge of that origin dilemma and thus their faith. So it keeps people in belief, and away from the devil if anything.
To also note, this no singularity model poses the same problem for both TE's as well as YEC's. The math says there was no beginning, hence no creation as stated in the Bible. That would either imply God does not exist, or if He does, He didn't create the universe as there wouldn't have been a beginning to it.
Yet, we trust the word of God, yes? The Bible speaks of a beginning. So the same Scripture that a YEC would use, a TE would too....
