Scientists find cosmic ripples from birth of universe

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Explain. You're clearly well versed in how the big bang theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Explain. You're clearly well versed in how the big bang theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Explain. You're clearly well versed in how the big bang theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.

the law of the conservation of energy and the big bang theory are at odds with each other.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

the law of the conservation of energy and the big bang theory are at odds with each other.

Okay, you've made a claim (that is wrong), now explain how this is true.

I didn't ask you to specify which law, I asked HOW it violates the law(s) as you claim it does.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Okay, you've made a claim (that is wrong), now explain how this is true.

please help me out, how is this wrong?

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

please help me out, how is this wrong?

You are the one making an outrageous claim. The burden of proof is on you. You haven't even told me HOW you think they are at odds.

Why would I help you? I'm using socratic irony here. Your inability to explain exposes your ignorance.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

You are the one making an outrageous claim. The burden of proof is on you.

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Ummm... no, it is not.

You can't claim you are smarter than every astronomer on earth and then say the burden of proof is on me. You made the claim, so back it up. I can't tell you how you are wrong when you won't even specify what the hell you're claiming.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Because you haven't a single foggy clue what the hell you're talking about. You made the claim back it up buckwheat.

[Priest31kc]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Go to 7:39:

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which has been tested and confirmed.

But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)

Guth says (p. 12-14, 271-276) that the person who first suggested that the universe and its associated space may have originated as a quantum fluctuation was Edward Tryon in 1973 in his paper Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? (Nature, vol. 246, p. 396-397, 14 December 1973.) As Tryon says in that paper:

In any big bang model, one must deal with the problem of 'creation'. This problem has two aspects. One is that the conservation laws of physics forbid the creation of something from nothing. The other is that even if the conservation laws were inapplicable at the moment of creation, there is no apparent reason for such an event to occur.
…
Contrary to widespread belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. The laws of physics merely imply that a Universe which appears from nowhere must have certain specific properties. In particular, such a Universe must have a zero net value for all conserved quantities.
…
To indicate how such a creation might have come about, I refer to quantum field theory, in which every phenomenon that could happen in principle actually does happen occasionally in practice, on a statistically random basis. For example, quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously from a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind.
…
If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.
Note that our universe likely came into being with just a tiny amount of matter. But after that initial fluctuation triggered the start of the universe, what caused the avalanche that created the massive amount of matter that currently comprise our universe? The inflationary model of the universe takes care of that problem too, although the explanation is a little technical. As Stenger says (p. 148):

[I]n the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics.
In other words, no energy was required to "create" the universe. The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course. What is more, this is also a prediction of inflationary cosmology, which we have seen has now been strongly supported by observations. Thus we can safely say,
No violation of energy conservation occurred if the universe grew out of an initial void of zero energy.

http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-b...rvation-energy