Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

[Montrovant]

energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing

I have already nailed you in that lie on several other threads, and hear you are repeating what you know is a lie on yet another thread.
A real miracle would be to get you to tell the truth!

It isn't a lie. It may not be true, but ding has posted some interviews with Alexander Vilenkin in which he describes the idea of the universe being generated from nothing. For example (although I don't know that ding linked to these specific things):
Alexander Vilenkin and the Universe From Nothing
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

 

[Montrovant]

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

I just posted this link in another response, but I want to specifically direct it to you:
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

That is a paper from Alexander Vilenkin. Let me quote the summary at the beginning:
"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves
along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions."

Note that Vilenkin says that after the creation of the universe, inflation occurs.

 

[ding]

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

I just posted this link in another response, but I want to specifically direct it to you:
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

That is a paper from Alexander Vilenkin. Let me quote the summary at the beginning:
"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves
along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions."

Note that Vilenkin says that after the creation of the universe, inflation occurs.

Right. The singularity is a product of the math of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations. After that boundary (i.e singularity) the universe expands and cools as predicted per the solutions to Einstein’s equations. The term expansion and inflation are interchangeable. The new thing that inflation theory added was how energy was created.

What we have here is a confusion of terminology. The important thing for you to understand is that inflation theory tells us how energy was created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm confounded as to why you don't believe it. I have posted multiple links showing that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, you have posted and quoted at least one link showing inflation to be about the expansion of the universe, the very word inflation is about expansion...why is it important to you that inflation be about the creation of matter and energy from nothing and not about expansion? And what do you base the belief that it is on?

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

I just posted this link in another response, but I want to specifically direct it to you:
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

That is a paper from Alexander Vilenkin. Let me quote the summary at the beginning:
"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves
along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions."

Note that Vilenkin says that after the creation of the universe, inflation occurs.

Right. The singularity is a product of the math of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations. After that boundary (i.e singularity) the universe expands and cools as predicted per the solutions to Einstein’s equations. The term expansion and inflation are interchangeable. The new thing that inflation theory added was how energy was created.

What we have here is a confusion of terminology. The important thing for you to understand is that inflation theory tells us how energy was created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

I was actually going to ask if the creation of energy might be part of a variation of inflation, as there are apparently a number of them.

I don't know if the idea of energy and matter being created from nothing are actually considered part of (some version(s) of) inflation or separate but linked. You are right that it is merely a terminology issue, not a fundamental one.

However, you are wrong that the only new thing inflation added was how energy was created. Inflation added a period of extremely rapid expansion, faster than the speed of light, to our concept of the original expansion of the universe. Inflation does not equate to the entire expansion, only the especially rapid expansion in the first moments.

I might be misreading your intent with that statement, though; perhaps you meant that the creation of the energy of the universe is a new thing added to inflation theory?

 

[ding]

Because the main point of the theory is how energy and matter was created from nothing.

It explains how the universe began. It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist forever without thermal equilibrium (i.e. second law of thermodynamics).

Which means that an explanation for how the first law of thermodynamics was not violated is required. Inflation theory does that. In the process it eliminates the flatness, monopole and the horizon problems.

They knew back in the 1920’s that the field equations predicted a singularity of a tiny, dense and hot early universe. They knew before that that every point was moving away from every other point in the universe. The phrase Big Bang was coined in the late 40’s.

Is there expansion from inflation? Yes. But it is very short lived and tiny. It is the period when all matter and energy were created from a quantum tunneling event. After that it was expansion and cooling which is how the Big Bang was perceived before inflation theory was discovered in the late 70’s.

Inflation isn’t about the expansion of the universe. It is about the creation of the universe.

Before this thread did you know about inflation?

And lastly, what do you think is the most important part of inflation? The expansion of the universe or the creation of the universe?

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

I just posted this link in another response, but I want to specifically direct it to you:
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

That is a paper from Alexander Vilenkin. Let me quote the summary at the beginning:
"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves
along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions."

Note that Vilenkin says that after the creation of the universe, inflation occurs.

Right. The singularity is a product of the math of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations. After that boundary (i.e singularity) the universe expands and cools as predicted per the solutions to Einstein’s equations. The term expansion and inflation are interchangeable. The new thing that inflation theory added was how energy was created.

What we have here is a confusion of terminology. The important thing for you to understand is that inflation theory tells us how energy was created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

I was actually going to ask if the creation of energy might be part of a variation of inflation, as there are apparently a number of them.

I don't know if the idea of energy and matter being created from nothing are actually considered part of (some version(s) of) inflation or separate but linked. You are right that it is merely a terminology issue, not a fundamental one.

However, you are wrong that the only new thing inflation added was how energy was created. Inflation added a period of extremely rapid expansion, faster than the speed of light, to our concept of the original expansion of the universe. Inflation does not equate to the entire expansion, only the especially rapid expansion in the first moments.

I might be misreading your intent with that statement, though; perhaps you meant that the creation of the energy of the universe is a new thing added to inflation theory?

As I understand it before inflation theory there was no scientific explanation of how matter and energy came to exist. There were only models and observations that the universe occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool. The problem as I see it is that the first law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and the second law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium occurring which is something we do not see. Inflation theory reconciles this apparent conflict by explaining that it is possible for matter and energy to be created without violating the law of conservation. Inflation theory tells us that a tiny closed universe can be created because the net energy of the universe is zero. The positive energy of the matter is cancelled out or offset or balanced by the negative energy of the gravity created by the energy.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same.

The problem with your "logic" is the SLoT says the entropy of each cycle can remain the same, you even admitted it, and if the entropy of each cycle remains the same then it did NOT increase!!!

 

[edthecynic]

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero.

Inflation is hardly the best explanation, not the worst, but nowhere near the best. It has many flaws.
And as I have shown you in other threads, there is no evidence that the universe is a closed system. That matter has been MEASURED to be accelerating there must be some source of USABLE energy doing the WORK needed to accelerate matter. If that source is within our universe then it must be some kind of super massive universal black hole leading back to the singularity point of the cycle, and if it is a universe outside our universe then it must be a black hole from another universe swallowing our universe. Since the source of the force that is accelerating the matter is beyond the range of our current instruments we can only guess, but our instruments clearly measure the acceleration so any workable theory must account for that fact, and inflation and thermal equilibrium fail miserably.

 

[edthecynic]

the second law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium occurring which is something we do not see.

The SLoT says no such thing which is why we do not see it.

 

[BreezeWood]

There were only models and observations that the universe occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

one wonders what you are defining as the universe - rather that the compressed energy cycle concluding at the point of singularity prior to conversion back to matter.

 

[edthecynic]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

Alexander Vilenkin

All you ever do is name drop understanding nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Do you know who Leon Lederman is? Because he said, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound.

More name dropping of things you don't understand.
But he doesn't say no energy! Very curious!
Here is the rest of the quote you conveniently left out:
IN THE VERY BEGINNING there was a void—a curious form of vacuum—a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential. Like a giant boulder perched at the edge of a towering cliff…

Wait a minute.

Before the boulder falls, I should explain that I really don't know what I'm talking about. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe, and unfortunately there are no data for the Very Beginning. None, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second—that is, some very short time after creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy.

 

[edthecynic]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your understanding of current human theory regarding the beginning of the universe says that those things in your post are true? It's entirely possible they are not true, as human understanding is inherently limited, based both on our intellectual capacity and our observational abilities. For that matter, I imagine there are still a number of different theories regarding the beginning of the universe, as well as variations and disagreements even within different theories.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

What evidence do you possess to say otherwise?

I'm speaking more of the lack of evidence.

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

That's what YOU do, so why can't he?????

 

[edthecynic]

Sooner or later matter runs out of energy, and those 'red shift' thingies slow down

Except MEASUREMENTS show matter at the far extremes of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down!

 

[edthecynic]

Ding, I'm sorry for being an ahole to you last night. I was just reading through th thread again and realized I was out of character. I still disagree with the notion of the 2nd being one directional, given that the nature of the universe dictates otherwise, but that's beside the point. I must have been tired and cranky or something.

Don't blame yourself, Ding's stubbornness in the face of contradictory evidence is very frustrating, which is his goal, frustrate you into giving up arguing with him and then claiming victory

 

[ding]

energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing

I have already nailed you in that lie on several other threads, and hear you are repeating what you know is a lie on yet another thread.
A real miracle would be to get you to tell the truth!

It isn't a lie. It may not be true, but ding has posted some interviews with Alexander Vilenkin in which he describes the idea of the universe being generated from nothing. For example (although I don't know that ding linked to these specific things):
Alexander Vilenkin and the Universe From Nothing
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

I appreciate our conversation.

I wish there were more like this.

 

[ding]

Ding, I'm sorry for being an ahole to you last night. I was just reading through th thread again and realized I was out of character. I still disagree with the notion of the 2nd being one directional, given that the nature of the universe dictates otherwise, but that's beside the point. I must have been tired and cranky or something.

Thanks.

I'd like to have a discussion on dark energy with you.

I don't believe it exists. What's your take on that?

 

[ding]

So far the only evidence I have that inflation theory is about the creation of the universe rather than its rapid expansion is your statements. Literally every link, from every site and physicist and cosmologist I have seen in this thread, including those provided by and quoted by you, say that inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe at its beginning, either just before or just after the Big Bang, depending on how one defines it.

Here's Alan Guth, the man who proposed inflationary theory:

"Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory."
"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand."
"It explains not only what caused the universe to expand, but also the origin of essentially all the matter in the universe at the same time. I qualify that with the word "essentially" because in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start. So, inflation is not quite a theory of the ultimate beginning, but it is a theory of evolution that explains essentially everything that we see around us, starting from almost nothing.."

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE | Edge.org

Yes, before this thread I had heard of inflation. I've certainly looked deeper into it here than I had previously, though.

What do you mean what is the most important part of inflation? Important to anyone learning about it, important to those who ascribe to it, fundamental to the concept? And considering the man who came up with the idea says that "in a typical version of the theory inflation needs about a gram's worth of matter to start," does that qualify as the creation you are talking about? This seems a bit like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from?

There’s actually quite a lot of it, right?

I just posted this link in another response, but I want to specifically direct it to you:
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

That is a paper from Alexander Vilenkin. Let me quote the summary at the beginning:
"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves
along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions."

Note that Vilenkin says that after the creation of the universe, inflation occurs.

Right. The singularity is a product of the math of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations. After that boundary (i.e singularity) the universe expands and cools as predicted per the solutions to Einstein’s equations. The term expansion and inflation are interchangeable. The new thing that inflation theory added was how energy was created.

What we have here is a confusion of terminology. The important thing for you to understand is that inflation theory tells us how energy was created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

I was actually going to ask if the creation of energy might be part of a variation of inflation, as there are apparently a number of them.

I don't know if the idea of energy and matter being created from nothing are actually considered part of (some version(s) of) inflation or separate but linked. You are right that it is merely a terminology issue, not a fundamental one.

However, you are wrong that the only new thing inflation added was how energy was created. Inflation added a period of extremely rapid expansion, faster than the speed of light, to our concept of the original expansion of the universe. Inflation does not equate to the entire expansion, only the especially rapid expansion in the first moments.

I might be misreading your intent with that statement, though; perhaps you meant that the creation of the energy of the universe is a new thing added to inflation theory?

As I understand it before inflation theory there was no scientific explanation of how matter and energy came to exist. There were only models and observations that the universe occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool. The problem as I see it is that the first law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and the second law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium occurring which is something we do not see. Inflation theory reconciles this apparent conflict by explaining that it is possible for matter and energy to be created without violating the law of conservation. Inflation theory tells us that a tiny closed universe can be created because the net energy of the universe is zero. The positive energy of the matter is cancelled out or offset or balanced by the negative energy of the gravity created by the energy.

FYI, I believe the change in the rate of "inflation" occurred when the cosmic tunneling event ended. In other words, while the universe was being "inflated" with energy and matter, the "inflation" was exponentially accelerating. Once all the matter and energy was added, it became more like "expansion" rather than inflation.

 

[edthecynic]

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

There you are again, name dropping and dishonestly leaving out the part that that followed and puts your half-truth into the context HE gave it: "I should explain that I really don't know what I'm talking about. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe, and unfortunately there are no data for the Very Beginning. None, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second—that is, some very short time after creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy."

 

[edthecynic]

Well, we haven't really discussed the implications of a multiverse scenario. And I would prefer not to go there. At least in my lifetime, I cannot envision a time when anything, having to do with the multiverse, could standup to the scientific method.

You nailed it!

Inflation: A Failed Solution - Creation Astronomy
And once inflation starts, it’s impossible to stop. The result is a “multiverse”: an infinite number of universes. But as the authors point out, this is not a robust scientific idea:

“Eternal inflation may devolve into a purely quantum world of uncertain and random fluctuations everywhere… We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation… the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”

But despite inflation’s numerous problems, secular cosmologists are not willing to question it. Instead, they have slapped on a series of bandages. Unfortunately, these bandages have made things worse instead of better. “Theorists rapidly rushed to patch the inflationary picture but at the cost of making arcane models of inflationary energy and revealing yet further problems.”

As a result of these and other problems, inflation is not merely an incorrect scientific theory. It’s actually not a scientific theory at all. It has deteriorated into something outside of science altogether. “Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”

 

[edthecynic]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from existing forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

How many times are going to repeat that thoroughly disproven lie?
The SLoT does no such thing. At thermal equilibrium there is no usable (kinetic) energy available to do WORK. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion and therefore all motion must stop for there to be no usable energy to do work. The Third Law of Thermodynamics says there is NO temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero) which proves thermal equilibrium is impossible at any temperature above absolute zero.

This has been explained to you over and over and over, and yet you mindlessly parrot the same creationist lie over and over and over making you STUPID rather than ignorant. Ignorant people lack information and when shown the info they lack they LEARN and cease to be ignorant. STUPID people NEVER learn no matter how much information they are given.