sculleywr said:
understand that the beginning according to "real" science is, according to all laws of thermodynamics, is impossible. No matter how many ways you play with the big bang theory, it always comes back to bringing something from nothing. that means causing matter to come from nothing. Big Bang Cosmologists like to drop to the "oscillating universe theory," where they theorize that the universe oscilates in size. The problem is, if that is true, then one crest will be higher than the one before it, and that one bigger than the one before, and so on. Soon enough, extrapolation brings us to a point where there was nothing. Now, debunk that, since you claim that our claims are superficial. An impossibility of a natural explanation requires a supernatural explanation.
The oscillating universe scenario is not the only idea. You think that it is impossible for a natural explaination for the universe having come out of nothing because it appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics, which is the law of the conservation of energy.
In classic physics, the conservation of energy would be violated if the amount of energy changed from one time to another. If time began with the Big Bang, then why try to use the conservation of energy for comparing the amounts of energy from before and after the Big Bang if there was no time before it? If the amount is taken to be zero for "before" the Big Bang, then after it there should be zero energy too.
Guess what? Something can come out of nothing. The matter and radiation of the universe is positive energy. The corresponding amount of negative energy is in the gravitational potential energy of the matter and radiation. It had been shown that in closed and flat universes that those add up to zero. The cosmic microwave background and the large scale structure of the universe shows that the universe is flat, which is also what inflation theories gives.
To get an idea of how gravitational potential energy is negative, imagine sending a rocket off of the Earth fast enough for it to escape. As it moves away from Earth, it would slow down and approach zero velocity as it approaches infinite distance from Earth. If it is said that the rocket has zero energy at infinity, by the conservation of energy, the rocket had zero energy on the ground too. But it had lots of kinetic energy when it was launched, which gives a negative gravitational potential energy on the Earth.
We know that things can come out of nothing because we can detect vacuum fluctuations. Virtual particles can appear and disappear without violating the conservation of energy as long as they disappear in a very short time according to the uncertainty principle for energy and time.
One way we can detect this is with the Casimir effect. A way to see that is to have two parallel plates or a plate and a sphere be very close together so that they restrict what wavelengths are possible for the virtual particles between them, so there are less of them between the plates than outside the gap, causing an inwards pressure that had been detected.
The London dispersion or van der Waals intermolecular force can be explained in terms of the Casimir effect. It is the main attractive force if the molecules are nonpolar. It also is greater between larger molecules. It's why fluorine and chlorine are gases at room tempertaure when bromie is a liquid and iodine is a solid. Atoms of noble gases are normally not ionized, so such forces are what those atoms attract each other with and those forces are what make it possible to liquidify those elements.
The Casimir effect is going to be important for micro and nanomachines because they're so small. They also say that geckos can walk on walls because of the Casimir effect and are working on materials that do that too.
Fluctuations also have plenty of other effects. The four forces of nature are carried by bosons, the force carrying particles. The particules that interact via those forces use virtual particles to do it. The masses of the bosons for the strong and weak nuclear forces are high, so they don't last very long as virtual particles, so their ranges are short. The other two forces, gravity and the electromagnetic force are long range because the bosons for those forces have zero rest masses, like the photon for the electromagnetic force, so the particles that interact via those forces can easily supply the energy for those bosons, allowing them to travel towards infinity.
If there were no fluctuations in the vacuum, there'd be no bosons to give energy to for carrying forces. Excited atoms can go back to their ground states by giving off photons because they can give the excess energy to fluctuations that correspond to photons of those energies.
The effects of vacuum energy can be seen at large scales. Type Ia supernove are good standard candles because we know how bright they are because they happen when a white dwarf collects gas from a partner star. When it reaches the Chandrasekhar limit, the maximum mass it can have, it collapes, fuses the collected material and blows up as a type Ia supernove. Since we understand the physics of this kind of event, we know what absolute brightnesses they have, so from the observed brightness, we can get the distance to particular supernove.
The redshifts of the supernove can be found, which is the shift in the wavelengths of the light from the objects caused by the expansion of the universe. The redshift can be seen by seeing the shift in absorption lines in the objects' spectra. The redshifting also gives a measure of distance because the further away something is, the more it is redshifted because the observator sees things further away as moving away with higher velocity due to the expansion of the universe.
When the observed brightness and the redshifts of those supernove are plotted, they should make a straight line if the expansion was at a constant rate because both of those things vary with distance. It was expected that the gravity of the matter in the universe would be slowing down the expansion, making a curve with the distant supernove looking brighter than they would if the expansion was constant. More than one group of people did this and found the same thing, which was opposite of what they expected. The curve was in the other direction, with the faraway supernove looking dimmer, meaning that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Something that could be accelerating the expansion of the universe is the negative pressure of the vacuum energy, also known as the cosmological constant or dark energy. Thermodynamics shows why the vacuum pressure is negative.
The work done by a change in a volume is minus pressure times volume or E = W = -pV. Positive pressure is inwards, so W would be negative because it takes energy to squish things. Negative pressure is outwards and gives you energy instead of requiring energy to do. The energy in a vacuum is given by the energy density times the volume or E = rho*V. Work is energy, so combine the two equations to get -pV = rho*V that gives -p = rho. So the negative of the pressure is equal to the energy density. The energy density is positive, so the pressure is negative.
So, we've seen things appear out of nowhere with effects seen on small and large scales. It looks like the universe is a large scale fluctuation that still has zero net energy due to gravitational potential energy being negative.
Claims that a natural explantion for things to come out of nowhere being impossible do not stand when we see the universe, after all, has a net energy of zero. How a fluctuation became the universe we are in is a subject of study now and we see the effects fluctuations on small scales.
Don't say 'goddidit' because of us not knowing how or why it happened yet because nobody had given evidence that any god did it. Such a god would be a god of the gaps. People thousands of years ago made up myths to explain how and why things like floods, fires and lightning happened. They also ended up using the god concept to explain why the world existed. Such things discourage investigations into the real reasons why things happen by making it seem ok to just make up things or to have faith in stuff other people said or wrote without evidence. And they're not real explainations because they have no evidence to back them up.