Tried to understand how we/ our universe came to be

[wolram]

For some time now i have tried to understand how we/ our universe came to
be, i admit i sway this way and that, i wish i had some foundation to cling to,
but apart from some numbers, cosmology seems to be still (wide open) what
roots your feet in the standard or other models ?

 

[aguy2]

For some time now i have tried to understand how we/ our universe came to
be, i admit i sway this way and that, i wish i had some foundation to cling to,
but apart from some numbers, cosmology seems to be still (wide open) what
roots your feet in the standard or other models ?

Are you questioning specific models, or modeling per se?
aguy2

 

[turbo]

I prefer a spacially and temporally infinite Universe to the BB model, with redshift arising from light losing energy to the transmissive media through which it propagates (the quantum vacuum). Such a universe would have no center of mass and no tendency to collapse. Olber's paradox is mooted by the fact that light arising from souces sufficiently distant is redshifted out of detectability.

 

[wolram]

Are you questioning specific models, or modeling per se?
aguy2

I have a few examples where maths leads observation, ie hawking radiation
and evaporating black holes, we have to assume the maths is correct,
AFAIK we have no way of observing them, also the size of the universe, one
has to use mathmatical models as we will most likely never be able to measure it, in other words, we may have some numbers that agree very well
with observation but there is allways a possiblity that they are wrong.

 

[aguy2]

I have a few examples where maths leads observation, ie hawking radiation
and evaporating black holes, we have to assume the maths is correct,
AFAIK we have no way of observing them, also the size of the universe, one
has to use mathmatical models as we will most likely never be able to measure it, in other words, we may have some numbers that agree very well
with observation but there is allways a possiblity that they are wrong.

Modeling can be physical to. The animation of figure 3 is an example. The experiment had nothing to do with cosmology, but you can almost see the dipole/octipole perfered direction and other 'pole' sites suggested by the WMAP3 data.
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~dynamo/PJRX/Results.html
aguy2

 

[Chronos]

An interesting question, Wolram, but hard to answer. The Planck wall prevents us from probing the history of the universe before the first Planck tick of time. Physics, as we know it, falls apart at that point. Even quantum physics gets tied up in knots [or strings] at that point. Perhaps the creator is modest.

 

[wolram]

An interesting question, Wolram, but hard to answer. The Planck wall prevents us from probing the history of the universe before the first Planck tick of time. Physics, as we know it, falls apart at that point. Even quantum physics gets tied up in knots [or strings] at that point. Perhaps the creator is modest.

Hi Chronos, i did not want to go into speculation and if this or that, more what is, or could be and end point to testing models, in my mind maths can be a double edged sword, (if it goes to far beyond observation) or physical testing, are we nearing the limits to what we can learn with the methods
we have, AFAIK gravity probe B may be the last big jump we can make for some time.