The Beginning of the Universe

[Wigberto Marciaga]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A common descriptive used by pop media, simplified for layman level readers unfamiliar with the BB that is commonly used unfortunately is explosion of spacetime. However the term explosion typically implies a force vector. However a constant vector is not involved in accordance to a huge bulk of observational evidence.

A more accurate description is a "rapid expansion of spacetime" due to reducing average /energy mass densities. This is where the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics steps in. 

this discussion doesn't make any statements of before the BB. The BB model doesn't describe how the universe began but how it evolved. 10−43 after the BB

Hello, blessing in the name of Yeshu the Anointed

But I don't understand how the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, could be applied, such as the issue of the speed of light during the big bang.

What you mention seems to me to be inconsistent with what I read. It doesn't seem like something has just been explained in a simple way somewhere, but rather that two different scenarios are being proposed.

Then, I remember the case of microwave red background. Something that, as far as I understand, would not be explained by conventional physical laws. Is that correct, according to your readings?

And it seems to me that they talk about something like the horizon problem.

[Mordred]

 

For anyone interested @KJW you might this of interest and it does relate to the toy modelling were doing. LOL that and this discussion brings up some fun mental exercises for me in so far as the mathematics that relate. Iin this case its useful to help demonstrate how a metric tensor gets filled from a ds^2 line element and how that affects the Christoffel.

here is the Christoffels for the FLRW metric in spherical coordinates.

\[ds^2=-c(dt^2)+\frac{a(t)}{1-kr^2}dr^2+a^2(t)r^2 d\theta^2+a^2(t)r^2sin^2d\phi\]

\[G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&\frac{a^2}{1-kr^2}&0&0\\0&0&a^2 r^2&0\\0&0&0&a^2r^2sin^2\theta \end{pmatrix}\]

\[\Gamma^0_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&0\\0&\frac{a}{1-(kr^2)}&0&0\\0&0&a^2r^2&0\\0&0&0&a^2r^2sin^2\theta \end{pmatrix}\]

\[\Gamma^1_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}0&\frac{\dot{a}}{ca}&0&0\\\frac{\dot{a}}{ca}&\frac{a\dot{a}}{c(1-kr^2)}&0&0\\0&0&\frac{1}{c}a\dot{a}r^2&0\\0&0&0&\frac{1}{c}a\dot{a}sin^2\theta \end{pmatrix}\]

\[\Gamma^2_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&\frac{\dot{a}}{ca}&0\\0&0&\frac{1}{r}&0\\\frac{\dot{a}}{ca}&\frac{1}{r}&0&0\\0&0&0&-sin\theta cos\theta \end{pmatrix}\]

\[\Gamma^3_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&\frac{\dot{a}}{ca}\\0&0&0&\frac{1}{r}\\0&0&0&cot\theta\\\frac{\dot{a}}{c}&\frac{1}{r}&cot\theta&0\end{pmatrix}\]

\(\dot{a}\) is the velocity of the scale factor if you see two dots its acceleration in time derivatives. K=curvature term

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[Wigberto Marciaga]

I mention, I am neither in favor of one point nor the other.

I think that calling the inflation proposal of the universe a big bang may not be the most accurate. I could be wrong, yes, but it seems to me that inflation is an alternative proposal to the big bang.

Calling the big bang inflation, instead of explanation, is perhaps just one way of saying it.

The big bang would also seem like something that inflates or expands in itself, but it would be an explosion, not just an expansion, as I have read.

The inflation model is then proposed to try to explain in a relatively easy way things that the big bang cannot explain.

In summary, what I understand is that the standard big bang model is one thing and the cosmic inflation model is another.

The big bang would be an unusual explosion that could not be appreciated by physics in this universe directly, where it occurs in itself and does not travel through outer space. At least, if I understand correctly

Inflation would be another model where the universe expands without the need for a big bang or a great explosion.

That's what I'm understanding about the topic.

Blessing

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I mention, I am neither in favor of one point nor the other.

I think that calling the inflation proposal of the universe a big bang may not be the most accurate. I could be wrong, yes, but it seems to me that inflation is an alternative proposal to the big bang.

Calling the big bang inflation, instead of explanation, is perhaps just one way of saying it.

The big bang would also seem like something that inflates or expands in itself, but it would be an explosion, not just an expansion, as I have read.

The inflation model is then proposed to try to explain in a relatively easy way things that the big bang cannot explain.

In summary, what I understand is that the standard big bang model is one thing and the cosmic inflation model is another.

The big bang would be an unusual explosion that could not be appreciated by physics in this universe directly, where it occurs in itself and does not travel through outer space. At least, if I understand correctly

Inflation would be another model where the universe expands without the need for a big bang or a great explosion.

That's what I'm understanding about the topic.

Blessing

Are you aware that the term "Big Bang" was a derogatory term used by proponents of the steady state theory to try and demean the idea? Big Bang was never meant to be an accurate description of the beginning of the universe.   

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

 

But I don't understand how the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, could be applied, such as the issue of the speed of light during the big bang.

 

Relativity is used to develop the FLRW metric which is the primary equation describing how our universe expands. The FLRW metric can be applied in full blown GR even QFT. Now as to how the universe expands depends on two primary relations the energy/mass density and the equivalent pressure term those particles generate depending on their momentum term. Matter generates zero pressure. While radiation ie massless particles generate a 1/3 ratio 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric

the first is the FLRW metric, the next link lists the equations of state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology

those two links roughly describe how matter, radiation and the cosmological constant energy/mass and their kinetic energy leads to a thermal expansion much like a gas an unrestrained gas. 

Now the CMB is an after effect of the BB, inflation, and electroweak symmetry breaking. Due to cosmological redshift the signal strength we receive is in the microwave range of frequencies

[Wigberto Marciaga]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

¿Es usted consciente de que el término "Big Bang" era un término despectivo utilizado por los defensores de la teoría del estado estacionario para intentar degradar la idea? El Big Bang nunca pretendió ser una descripción precisa del comienzo del universo.   

Hello, blessing in the name of Yeshu

I didn't know. I just read that it was a certain Fred Hoyle.

However, it seems that this has not affected the theory itself, which remained with that title.

 

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Hello, blessing in the name of Yeshu

I didn't know. I just read that it was a certain Fred Hoyle.

However, it seems that this has not affected the theory itself, which remained with that title.

 

Yes but the term was not a description made by the people who actually supported the idea of the universe having a beginning. They originally described it as an expansion of space and time not an explosion into space and time. The term Big Bang obfuscates the real issue. 

BTW Yeshu? I am not familiar with that term but I will assume it is some sort of religious greeting.  

[MigL]

As the Big Bang theory is an evolution of space-time, not a specific event, and it encompasses Inflationary theory.
One of the reasons for Inflationary theories is the horizon problem.
It arises because the only part of the universe we are in causal contact with, is the observable universe; so how did the parts outside the observable universe become homogeneous and isotropic ?
At some time immediately after the initiation of the Big Bang, the universe had to have been in causal contact to allow light ( and information ) to cross the universe and establish an equilibrium .
Inflation then provides many orders of magnitude expansion before settling down to its current rate, with the universe no longer in causal contact.
Without the initial causal contact/equilibrium we  would have a 'horizon problem', as we could not explain how the universe can be homogeneous and isotropic; inflation solves that problem.

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

As the Big Bang theory is an evolution of space-time, not a specific event, and it encompasses Inflationary theory.
One of the reasons for Inflationary theories is the horizon problem.
It arises because the only part of the universe we are in causal contact with, is the observable universe; so how did the parts outside the observable universe become homogeneous and isotropic ?
At some time immediately after the initiation of the Big Bang, the universe had to have been in causal contact to allow light ( and information ) to cross the universe and establish an equilibrium .
Inflation then provides many orders of magnitude expansion before settling down to its current rate, with the universe no longer in causal contact.
Without the initial causal contact/equilibrium we  would have a 'horizon problem', as we could not explain how the universe can be homogeneous and isotropic; inflation solves that problem.

Nice explanation +1 covers the main points in a short and sweet manner

[Wigberto Marciaga]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

La relatividad se utiliza para desarrollar la métrica FLRW, que es la ecuación principal que describe cómo se expande nuestro universo. La métrica FLRW se puede aplicar en GR completo incluso en QFT. Ahora bien, la forma en que se expande el universo depende de dos relaciones principales: la densidad de energía/masa y el término de presión equivalente que generan esas partículas dependiendo de su término de impulso. La materia genera presión cero. Mientras que la radiación, es decir, las partículas sin masa, generan una proporción de 1/3. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric

la primera es la métrica FLRW, el siguiente enlace enumera las ecuaciones de estado.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmología

Esos dos vínculos describen aproximadamente cómo la materia, la radiación y la energía/masa cosmológica constante y su energía cinética conducen a una expansión térmica muy parecida a la de un gas, un gas desenfrenado. 

Ahora el CMB es un efecto posterior del BB, la inflación y la ruptura de la simetría electrodébil. Debido al corrimiento al rojo cosmológico, la intensidad de la señal que recibimos está en el rango de frecuencias de las microondas.

Remember that I'm just an amateur on these topics.

For the microwave background to occur, the speed of light would have to have been exceeded for some time. The question would be, if there is no explosion, what caused the expansion?

Because if not I understand wrong, this would be what remains to be explained now.

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Sí, pero el término no era una descripción hecha por las personas que realmente apoyaban la idea de que el universo tuviera un comienzo. Originalmente lo describieron como una expansión del espacio y el tiempo, no como una explosión en el espacio y el tiempo. El término Big Bang confunde el verdadero problema. 

Por cierto, ¿Yeshu? No estoy familiarizado con ese término pero asumiré que es algún tipo de saludo religioso.  

That's right, Yeshu is the Anointed One. An exemplary man who only did good things by obeying his God.

I understand that Einstein was not very convinced that there had been a big bang either. But the expansion proposed an origin of the universe, and in those times it was thought to be infinite. Is it correct according to your information?

[Mordred]

9 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Remember that I'm just an amateur on these topics.

For the microwave background to occur, the speed of light would have to have been exceeded for some time. The question would be, if there is no explosion, what caused the expansion?

Because if not I understand wrong, this would be what remains to be explained now.

No that's incorrect the speed of light or any information exchange remains c. However keep in mind the our observable universe (shared causality). Was far smaller prior to inflation.  However spacetime itself isn't restricted by c. 

Here is a good article with no or very little math that will greatly help you. You need a many skills or physics skills to understand this article.

Entitled

"What we have learned from Observational Cosmology"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446

 

 

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

That's right, Yeshu is the Anointed One. An exemplary man who only did good things by obeying his God.

Interesting, I've never heard of Yeshu but you would need to start another thread to explain it to me. 

7 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I understand that Einstein was not very convinced that there had been a big bang either. But the expansion proposed an origin of the universe, and in those times it was thought to be infinite. Is it correct according to your information?

None of that sounds familiar to me, quite possibly someone else can answer that. 

[Wigberto Marciaga]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Como la teoría del Big Bang es una evolución del espacio-tiempo, no un evento específico, y abarca la teoría inflacionaria.
Una de las razones de las teorías inflacionarias es el problema del horizonte.
Surge porque la única parte del universo con la que estamos en contacto causal es el universo observable; Entonces, ¿cómo se volvieron homogéneas e isotrópicas las partes fuera del universo observable?
En algún momento inmediatamente después del inicio del Big Bang, el universo tuvo que haber estado en contacto causal para permitir que la luz (y la información) cruzaran el universo y establecieran un equilibrio.
Luego, la inflación proporciona una expansión de muchos órdenes de magnitud antes de estabilizarse a su tasa actual, y el universo ya no está en contacto causal.
Sin el contacto/equilibrio causal inicial tendríamos un "problema de horizonte", ya que no podríamos explicar cómo el universo puede ser homogéneo e isotrópico; La inflación resuelve ese problema.

Blessing

Let's say that in principle an expansion and a finite universe are proposed. Later on, there is a big explosion, or big bang. Then, the inflationary model emerges that tries to explain what the big bang cannot. This is what I understand from reading on Wikipedia

So it is one thing to consider the big bang inflation, and another would be the inflationary theory that emerged several years later with Alan Guth, more than 30 years after George Gamow proposed the explosion.

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No, eso es incorrecto, la velocidad de la luz o cualquier intercambio de información permanece c. Sin embargo, tenga en cuenta nuestro universo observable (causalidad compartida). Era mucho menor antes de la inflación. Sin embargo, el espacio-tiempo en sí no está restringido por c. 

Aquí tienes un buen artículo con muy poca o ninguna matemática que te será de gran ayuda. Necesitas muchas habilidades o conocimientos de física para entender este artículo.

Con derecho

"Lo que hemos aprendido de la Cosmología Observacional"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446

 

 

I share a quote from the conclusion, which seems to me that we can conclude that it is a complex topic with many gaps and that perhaps it lacks light years of research. Despite the enormous attempts and current advances:

"We know that the idea of a Big Bang is rather naive in the sense that it is an extrapolation down to t = 0 of a model based on a theory that breaks down at least at the Planck time (because at such densities ones needs an eagerly awaited quantum theory of gravitation)."

23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Interesting, I've never heard of Yeshu but you would need to start another thread to explain it to me. 

None of that sounds familiar to me, quite possibly someone else can answer that. 

If you want we can talk about my religion, yes. Something I can tell you is that Yeshu is an ancient Hebrew name, he is a man and not a god.

Regarding the topic, it seems to me that the agnostic or atheist Einstein brought up a quote: "There are two infinite things, the universe and the stupidity of humans, and I am not sure about the first."

But come on, maybe it was one of those phrases attributed to Einstein but said by someone else. Although yes, I understand that it was the proposed expansion of the universe that opened the doors to the idea among physicists that the universe had had an origin (later it would have an end) and would not be eternal, nor infinite.

[Mordred]

39 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Blessing

Let's say that in principle an expansion and a finite universe are proposed. Later on, there is a big explosion, or big bang. Then, the inflationary model emerges that tries to explain what the big bang cannot. This is what I understand from reading on Wikipedia

A little warning wiki pages can be written by anyone, sometimes professors but not always. expansion and a BB doesn't rule out the possibility of an infinite universe. Our current observations still hasn't ruled out either possibility. 

 

39 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Blessing

 

"We know that the idea of a Big Bang is rather naive in the sense that it is an extrapolation down to t = 0 of a model based on a theory that breaks down at least at the Planck time (because at such densities ones needs an eagerly awaited quantum theory of gravitation)."

yes but at the same time QM has its Planck unit restrictions which is related to the BB and the resulting singularity condition. What isn't mentioned in most webpages such as wiki is that the singularity is a mathematical singularity. We do have  working theories  of quantum gravity for everyday observations of our universe. It is only in the extreme range where the issue comes up.

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[Eise]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

3 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

That's right, Yeshu is the Anointed One. An exemplary man who only did good things by obeying his God.

Interesting, I've never heard of Yeshu but you would need to start another thread to explain it to me. 

Not needed: 'Yeshu' is just the (possibly) original name of Jesus in Arameic.

3 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I understand that Einstein was not very convinced that there had been a big bang either. But the expansion proposed an origin of the universe, and in those times it was thought to be infinite. Is it correct according to your information?

Yes. In those days astronomers did not even know that other galaxies existed. They assumed that the universe on grand scales did not really change, and therefore had no beginning. When Einstein discovered, when applying his general theory of relativity to the cosmos as a whole, that the universe could not be stable, but had to expand or shrink, he introduced his 'cosmological constant'. Later Edwin Hubble discovered first that the spirally 'nebulae' were other galaxies on their own, and later that galaxies were receding from ours, the farther ones receding the fastest.

Lemaitre was the first to propose, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, that all the mass and energy of the universe once was concentrated in a 'cosmic egg'. This was not generally believed, and e.g. Fred Hoyle proposed the 'steady state theory', in which the universe is expanding, but that constantly new matter and energy is created, so that the universe does not really change on the grand scale. He coined the term 'Big Bang' to ridicule the idea that the universe started in a highly concentrated state.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

Not needed: 'Yeshu' is just the (possibly) original name of Jesus in Arameic.

Yes. In those days astronomers did not even know that other galaxies existed. They assumed that the universe on grand scales did not really change, and therefore had no beginning. When Einstein discovered, when applying his general theory of relativity to the cosmos as a whole, that the universe could not be stable, but had to expand or shrink, he introduced his 'cosmological constant'. Later Edwin Hubble discovered first that the spirally 'nebulae' were other galaxies on their own, and later that galaxies were receding from ours, the farther ones receding the fastest.

Lemaitre was the first to propose, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, that all the mass and energy of the universe once was concentrated in a 'cosmic egg'. This was not generally believed, and e.g. Fred Hoyle proposed the 'steady state theory', in which the universe is expanding, but that constantly new matter and energy is created, so that the universe does not really change on the grand scale. He coined the term 'Big Bang' to ridicule the idea that the universe started in a highly concentrated state.

In reality Jesus is a late character, who is presented as a man-god. Which is taking on different characteristics than Yeshu, distorting real history. I think the fact that one is only a man, and the other is a god to his followers, makes them very different.

Regarding the topic, it seems to me that your explanation coincides with my previous readings.

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

A little warning wiki pages can be written by anyone, sometimes professors but not always. expansion and a BB doesn't rule out the possibility of an infinite universe. Our current observations still hasn't ruled out either possibility. 

 

yes but at the same time QM has its Planck unit restrictions which is related to the BB and the resulting singularity condition. What isn't mentioned in most webpages such as wiki is that the singularity is a mathematical singularity. We do have  working theories  of quantum gravity for everyday observations of our universe. It is only in the extreme range where the issue comes up.

Seriously, I think the topic is complex. The fact that you consider the theories functional does not stop me from thinking that they would be contradictory.

Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic.

Even if there hypothetically exists a quantum theory of gravitation that is deterministic, at least for now it seems impossible to observe it in a way that its deterministic mechanism, or laws, can be adequately appreciated. So in observations it will practically always seem like something chaotic and incomprehensible (without determinism, without rules, typical of chance), as quantum mechanics seems to me to be as a science, something that honestly, even in the definition of what it is, it's hard for me to fully understand.

Edited April 3 by Wigberto Marciaga

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

If you want we can talk about my religion, yes.

!

Moderator Note

As Moontanman said, this must take place in another thread. The current thread is about cosmology

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

In reality Jesus is a late character, who is presented as a man-god. Which is taking on different characteristics than Yeshu, distorting real history. I think the fact that one is only a man, and the other is a god to his followers, makes them very different.

Regarding the topic, it seems to me that your explanation coincides with my previous readings.

Seriously, I think the topic is complex. The fact that you consider the theories functional does not stop me from thinking that they would be contradictory.

Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic.

 

As one who knows all the major formulas and how they work in Cosmology, GR, QFT, QM and even string theory. 

After 35 years of examining every major theory. I can attest that for anyone that truly understand why and how thr theories work  that are very functional for their intended purposes. Regardless of all the pop media articles and all the articles denying physics and any theory they don't like for mere philosophical reasons.

90 percent of the time it's the ones that don't understand the actual theories that create those articles claiming this or that theory doesn't work .

Yes the mathematics of physics is complex. They are used to mathematically describe a huge range of observations.

That's the primary reason why statistical mathematics is used by QM. Those mathematics do nothing to determine nor control realism.

It's only purpose is to make predictions of cause and effect. 

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Blessing

Let's say that in principle an expansion and a finite universe are proposed. Later on, there is a big explosion, or big bang. Then, the inflationary model emerges that tries to explain what the big bang cannot. This is what I understand from reading on Wikipedia

The expansion is real not something mathematical or made up. The term Big Bang was coined to denigrate the idea of an expanding universe after the expansion was discovered. 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

So it is one thing to consider the big bang inflation, and another would be the inflationary theory that emerged several years later with Alan Guth, more than 30 years after George Gamow proposed the explosion.

It is my understanding that the term Big bang was coined after the expansion was discovered not before. Do you have a link? 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I share a quote from the conclusion, which seems to me that we can conclude that it is a complex topic with many gaps and that perhaps it lacks light years of research. Despite the enormous attempts and current advances:

??? What is the take away from this?

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

"We know that the idea of a Big Bang is rather naive in the sense that it is an extrapolation down to t = 0 of a model based on a theory that breaks down at least at the Planck time (because at such densities ones needs an eagerly awaited quantum theory of gravitation)."

We know that the Big Bang Theory is not complete due to it not encompassing quantum mechanics but to say it is naive? I'm not sure where you are coming from on that. 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

If you want we can talk about my religion, yes. Something I can tell you is that Yeshu is an ancient Hebrew name, he is a man and not a god.

Not interested, the name threw me, I regret asking, if you want to discuss religion please start a new thread. 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Regarding the topic, it seems to me that the agnostic or atheist Einstein brought up a quote: "There are two infinite things, the universe and the stupidity of humans, and I am not sure about the first."

Please explain why Einstein's atheism is relevant? 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

But come on, maybe it was one of those phrases attributed to Einstein but said by someone else. Although yes, I understand that it was the proposed expansion of the universe that opened the doors to the idea among physicists that the universe had had an origin (later it would have an end) and would not be eternal, nor infinite.

The universe can be both infinite and have a beginning... t=0 is the key. 

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Moontanman,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.4446.pdf

In the conclusion you find the quote.

I think there's been some confusion here. I would like to mention that the cosmic inflation model is one thing, and the expansion of the universe is another thing. The cosmic inflation model arose after expansion was postulated, as I understand it, and is later than the big bang cosmological model. In my opinion, it is an alternative to the big bang model proposed by Gamow.

This explosion model is what was called the big bang. Maybe in a derogatory way at first, but that's why "bang"

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Seriously, I think the topic is complex. The fact that you consider the theories functional does not stop me from thinking that they would be contradictory.
Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic.

Perhaps it's a language issue, but you haven't explained what you find 'contradictory'.

Any valid theory has to be self consistent, and the Big Bang theory, while it has gaps of understanding, is self-consistent.
Since it was first proposed the gaps have been filled in by theory like particle Physics early universe nucleosynthesis and inflationary theory, and observation, like the temperature and smoothness of the CMB.
Observation, however, is a 'two-sided sword', as it also reveals additional gaps, such as those revealed by James Webb telescopic observations.
But the major gap, where we cannot make headway, is at extremely small separations, where early universe  and Black Hole answers are hidden, because we cannot get anywhere near Planck scale observations,
This realm is non-deterministic, and contrary to your hopes, the universe IS non-deterministic, while determinism is an emergent statistical property.
Quantum mechanics/field theory will never be deterministic, and any future quantum gravity theory will, itself, be non-deterministic at small scales whilst approaching GR's geometrical interpretation at larger ones.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

Perhaps it's a language issue, but you haven't explained what you find 'contradictory'.

Any valid theory has to be self consistent, and the Big Bang theory, while it has gaps of understanding, is self-consistent.
Since it was first proposed the gaps have been filled in by theory like particle Physics early universe nucleosynthesis and inflationary theory, and observation, like the temperature and smoothness of the CMB.
Observation, however, is a 'two-sided sword', as it also reveals additional gaps, such as those revealed by James Webb telescopic observations.

Spoiler

 

But the major gap, where we cannot make headway, is at extremely small separations, where early universe  and Black Hole answers are hidden, because we cannot get anywhere near Planck scale observations,
This realm is non-deterministic, and contrary to your hopes, the universe IS non-deterministic, while determinism is an emergent statistical property.
Quantum mechanics/field theory will never be deterministic, and any future quantum gravity theory will, itself, be non-deterministic at small scales whilst approaching GR's geometrical interpretation at larger ones.

 

The contradiction: Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic.

 

If a thing is deterministic then it contradicts a thing that cannot be deterministic. They contradict each other.

 

Therefore, if it wants to resolve itself in a conciliatory way with relativity, quantum mechanics would have to become deterministic, because relativity is deterministic and has never been a theory outside of determinism.

 

For me, that's the contradiction.

[Mordred]

23 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

 

The contradiction: Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic.

 

If a thing is deterministic then it contradicts a thing that cannot be deterministic. They contradict each other.

 

Therefore, if it wants to resolve itself in a conciliatory way with relativity, quantum mechanics would have to become deterministic, because relativity is deterministic and has never been a theory outside of determinism.

 

For me, that's the contradiction.

Relativity doesn't use probabilities in its equations. QM does that's the only difference but everyone believes that's some reality issue when it's nothing more than a different method of mathematical treatment. Nothing more, that includes superposition wavefunction collapse. A wavefunction is a mathematical object that may or may not even involve a physical measurement. Waveforms are a measurable range of values. Wavefunctions are strictly mathematical objects.

One of the biggest sources of confusion is where to distinguish when a math statement describes a physical measurement or when it describes a mathematical set of some complex variable.

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

If a thing is deterministic then it contradicts a thing that cannot be deterministic. They contradict each other.

The Quantum Mechanical charge carriers in a semiconductor behave in non-deterministic ways, and we can model that with probability amplitude distributions.

The transistors in the CPU and memory of the computer/phone you are posting with are essentially macroscopic and can be modelled with deterministic circuit theory.

Both models, non-deterministic describing quantum particles, and deterministic describing circuit elements, give results accurate enough that the approx. 100 Billion transistors comprising CPU and memory of your device, run totally deterministic programs. Every single time ... no probability about it.
Sometimes, even I find it amazing.

So where is the contradiction ???

[Wigberto Marciaga]

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

Relativity doesn't use probabilities in its equations. QM does that's the only difference but everyone believes that's some reality issue when it's nothing more than a different method of mathematical treatment. Nothing more, that includes superposition wavefunction collapse. A wavefunction is a mathematical object that may or may not even involve a physical measurement. Waveforms are a measurable range of values. Wavefunctions are strictly mathematical objects. One of the biggest sources of confusion is where to distinguish when a math statement describes a physical measurement or when it describes a mathematical set of some complex variable.

 

 

 

I want to raise the following. I'm not in favor of any version, I'm just trying to compare the readings I've done with your comments.

 

I think you try to pass it off as a minimal difference, when in reality, the possibilities do not exist in relativity and that makes it impossible to work with QM.

 

Ultimately, this basic contradiction leads to both mathematical theories operating on their own. Relativity in its field of determinism and limits, and QM in the indeterminism and practically infinite possibilities.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The Quantum Mechanical charge carriers in a semiconductor behave in non-deterministic ways, and we can model that with probability amplitude distributions.

The transistors in the CPU and memory of the computer/phone you are posting with are essentially macroscopic and can be modelled with deterministic circuit theory.

Both models, non-deterministic describing quantum particles, and deterministic describing circuit elements, give results accurate enough that the approx. 100 Billion transistors comprising CPU and memory of your device, run totally deterministic programs. Every single time ... no probability about it.
Sometimes, even I find it amazing.

So where is the contradiction ???

Well, each one operates in their field. The fields do not cross, they are not unified, because both theories contradict each other from the base. They do not combine limits with unlimited possibilities.

What is limited contradicts what is unlimited, and vice versa.

Relativity is not something that was designed to evaluate only some part of the universe or the cosmos, but rather it was designed to explain all phenomena. So in reality quantum gravity should follow the same rules as gravity in relativity.

Relativity proposes a single space-time, a single universe, and a single set of rules that govern that universe.

In relativity all frames of reference will lead to deterministic results, and this would include at the subatomic level.

At least that's what I understand about relativity, as far as Albert Einstein left it.