When you're trying to figure out how things came to be the way they are you have no choice but to predict after the fact; if you're lucky you'll predict something you haven't confirmed yet - for example, some hypotheses about events during the early moments of the universe predicted patterns in the cosmic background radiation. When they looked for those patterns they didn't see them, so those hypotheses have been discarded. Other hypotheses predicted different features of the CMB, and those features were found, so those hypotheses are still 'in the game'.
OK. In the case of the creation remnant background waves that are interpreted as radiation here in the solar system as they enter our space, it is more a matter of interpreting waves rather than predicting what things were like before ever there was a universe.
If wee look at the grid below, and imagine this to be the area of the solar system and area, with info coming in from outside, we might get the idea.
Man only ever and always sees waves and all things once it enters. Since it is 'radiation' here, we imagine that represents what we see before it gets here also.
Looking at the time it takes the ripples to move across the grid, for example, we would also assume that a wave that entered the grid here also involved taking the same time to move before it entered our area or grid. If there was no time outside the grid, if time were a feature of the grid, then obviously these assumptions would have no value. All things are seen only in the grid. That is your problem with the CMB. Your problems with the entire universe popping out from nothing are far larger.
They don't know, they do 'what if' scenarios with various parameters to see what outcomes they get.
No, there's no religion or faith; just exploring the implications and outcomes of various hypotheses.
The problem with the models is that only certain beliefs are allowed and used. A belief that there was no creation. A belief that there is a universe that is the same in time and space as here. A belief that the things in the grid represent the universe. A belief that quantum fields would have existed as we know them in a time when there was nothing. Etc.
Not really. They want to see if applying the same laws in various circumstances can give rise to a universe like ours. The answer seems to be yes, it can, in a number of ways.
When you limit all explanations to certain criteria and use that as the sole basis for explanations, the answer has to be yes. The problem is the criteria used. Why should we assume no creation? Why should we assume some
nothing happened to contain fields and laws like we know?
As always in science, you need to make reasonable assumptions. I've already explained the thinking; if multiple independent lines evidence of the past are consistent with the laws of today having applied, it's reasonable to assume that those laws did apply, until there is some reason to think they did not.
There is NO independent lines of evidence, there is in the grid assumptions. I sometimes call this fishbowl philosophy....rather than knowledge or science.
What happens to the peak of one wave when it cancels with the trough of another (destructive interference)? the amplitudes sum to zero and they are no more. It's the same principle.
That is a reality of the grid. Looking deeper we might ask if the wave started of fished anywhere outside our frame of reference?
Neither God nor creation are necessary if quantum spacetime is all there is and all there ever was. At present it's all conjecture.
Only if we deny history and human experience with God. Then in addition, we invoke great time...that depends on a plethora of
in grid what ifs!
No, you misunderstand - if all those were true, then it would be almost certain.
There is no rational alternative to reasonable assumptions, and we can only apply the tools we have.
When we limit what is called reasonable to a godless set of dreams and beliefs, that actually is not rational.
But regarding your constant refrain of 'different past states', how far into the past do you think we can reasonably apply the current states we see - a thousand years? ten thousand? a hundred? more? less?
On earth, I suspect nature in the past was different. After the flood, about 4400 years ago in the days of Peleg I suspect the change happened. Lifespans, plant growth rates, thermodynamics, biological evolution and genetics, etc.
That has nothing to do with the far universe though, that we know.
I'm not justifying beliefs, I'm trying to describe and explain some ideas scientists are considering. There are no beliefs as such - if a scientist says they believe something, it's understood to be a provisional statement of what they think is the most likely explanation for some phenomenon.
The
most likely always has to conform to the set of beliefs they use.
Reminds me of the monks at school - ask them a direct question on religious matters and you'd get an evasive, opaque, obfuscatory, non-answer in response.
