Thread: Before the Big Bang???

I’m interested in the fact that even those who seem to me to be extremely rational, scientific and knowledgeable regarding cosmology, people who can demonstrate a good understanding of GR/Gravity etc. Still , when it comes to ‘Big Bang’ theories, or, more specifically, the ‘creation event’ talk about something ‘happening’ or something ‘coming from’ something ( or nothing rather). Surely this is actually nonsensical? If there is no-thing, no dimension, then there is no time in which something can occur. That the event happened seems self evident (although it is of course possible to debate even that assertion) but the concept of a creation event implies, to me at any rate a time and a place for the event to happen. Causality breaks down at the creation event and so it follows that trying to seek a cause/explanation is also nonsensical.
Am I wrong in this view?

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

I’m interested in the fact that even those who seem to me to be extremely rational, scientific and knowledgeable regarding cosmology, people who can demonstrate a good understanding of GR/Gravity etc. Still , when it comes to ‘Big Bang’ theories, or, more specifically, the ‘creation event’ talk about something ‘happening’ or something ‘coming from’ something ( or nothing rather). Surely this is actually nonsensical? If there is no-thing, no dimension, then there is no time in which something can occur. That the event happened seems self evident (although it is of course possible to debate even that assertion) but the concept of a creation event implies, to me at any rate a time and a place for the event to happen. Causality breaks down at the creation event and so it follows that trying to seek a cause/explanation is also nonsensical.
Am I wrong in this view?

Who do you see talking with any confidence about pre-Big Bang events?
Creationists maybe...but not scientists.

From Wiki:
"While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history."

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

I’m interested in the fact that even those who seem to me to be extremely rational, scientific and knowledgeable regarding cosmology, people who can demonstrate a good understanding of GR/Gravity etc. Still , when it comes to ‘Big Bang’ theories, or, more specifically, the ‘creation event’ talk about something ‘happening’ or something ‘coming from’ something ( or nothing rather). Surely this is actually nonsensical? If there is no-thing, no dimension, then there is no time in which something can occur. That the event happened seems self evident (although it is of course possible to debate even that assertion) but the concept of a creation event implies, to me at any rate a time and a place for the event to happen. Causality breaks down at the creation event and so it follows that trying to seek a cause/explanation is also nonsensical.
Am I wrong in this view?

Who do you see talking with any confidence about pre-Big Bang events?
Creationists maybe...but not scientists.

From Wiki:
"While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history."

I dont see anybody at all talking with confidence about pre Big Bang events and I dont see that I ever suggested that...

Take a look at the links given in the first post of this thread.

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

I dont see anybody at all talking with confidence about pre Big Bang events and I dont see that I ever suggested that...

Ok - I must have misunderstood your post.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

The Ekpyrotic Model of the Universe proposes that our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension.

The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension. The two three-dimensional worlds collide and "stick," the kinetic energy in the collision is converted the quarks, electrons, photons, etc., that are confined to move along three dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot big bang phase begins without a singularity. The universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the big bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere. The energetically preferred geometry for the two worlds is flat, so their collision produces a flat big bang universe. According to Einstein's equations, this means that the total energy density of the Universe is equal to the critical density. Massive magnetic monopoles, which are overabundantly produced in the standard big bang theory, are not produced at all in this scenario because the temperature after collision is far too small to produce any of these massive particles.

Quantum effects cause the incoming three-dimensional world to ripple along the extra-dimension prior to collision so that the collision occurs in some places at slightly different times than others. By the time the collision is complete, the rippling leads to small variations in temperature, which seed temperature fluctuations in the microwave background and the formation of galaxies. We have shown that the spectrum of energy density fluctuations is scale-invariant (the same amplitude on all scales). The production of a scale-invariant spectrum from hyperexpansion was one of the great triumphs of inflationary theory, and here we have repeated the feat using completely different physics.

The building blocks of the ekpyrotic theory are derived from superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid-1990's, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that, under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval. Six dimensions are presumed to be curled up in a microscopic ball, called a Calabi-Yau manifold. The ball is too small to be noticed in everyday experience, and so our universe appears to be a four-dimensional (three space dimensions and one time dimension) surface embedded in a five-dimensional space-time. This five-dimensional theory, called heterotic M-theory, was formulated by Andre Lukas (Sussex). Ovrut and Dan Waldram (Queen Mary Westerfield College). According to Horava-Witten and heterotic M-theory, particles are constrained to move on one of the three-dimensional boundaries on either side of the extra dimensional interval. Our visible universe would be one of these boundaries; the other boundary and the intervening space would be hidden because particles and light cannot not travel across the intervening space. Only gravity is able to couple matter on one boundary to the other. In addition, there can exist other three-dimensional hypersurfaces in the interval, which lie parallel to the outer boundaries and which can carry energy. These intervening planes are called ``branes," short for membranes. The collision that ignites the hot big bang phase of the ekpyrotic model occurs when a three-dimensional brane is attracted to and collides into the boundary corresponding to our visible universe.

I believe the Big Bang is generally regarded as a terrible mistake by most deities.

I have been following the development of Brane / Ekpyrotic theories for some time now ( New Scientist articles mainly) and it is very compelling, but at this point its still considered rather 'exotic' compared to the currently accepted 'Big Bang' idea. I'd love to see some kind of experimental verification but of course I do realise that this might be a long way off, however, as I understand it the maths can be made to work? And the concept of additional dimensions being necessary for this idea seem to coincide neatly with the idea of additional dimensions being required for superstring theory... Plus it does rather handily get rid of the idea that there was some point at which time began and brings back into focus the more easily accepted notion of infinite time. Or have I got this completely wrong ( a distinct possibility)?

The suspension of disbelief that is required in order to accept the BBT is quite staggering.

However, until someone comes up with a sensible mechanism for light to be redshifted by the distance it travels, and a reasonable explanation for the CMBR, people will insist on satisfying their own curiosity by imagining their way to an answer. I guess some people find that it is better to make something up than having a mystery on our hands, and accepting that we don't honestly know.

But, how dare I, or anyone else, question the established conjecture? Thousands of people with degrees in the field have signed off on it (and a degree in the field means they have earned the right to be automatically correct in their opinion no matter what their opinion is. Hard work makes you infallible. )

Originally Posted by kojax

a degree in the field means they have earned the right to be automatically correct in their opinion no matter what their opinion is. Hard work makes you infallible. )

I don't think that's how science works. There are a million things to overcome for an idea to be accepted, not least of all pass peer review. Many, if not most, are rejected. So there is no such thing as "automatically" anything.

Yeah... That one sounded like a personal appeal... BBT is well supported by strong evidence. Just because he doesn't find it plausible does not mean there is a conspiracy in the works nor does it mean the strong supportive evidence is suddenly invalid.
The "required suspension of disbelief" could be spelled out for all us faithful minions, I suppose...

I think that people often get mixed up between 'best model that fits the currently available data' and reality sometimes.

I don't however see that it needs a huge suspension of disbelief to go with BBT, its just that the concept of 'nothing' is easily ( and quite naturally) misunderstood. Quite frankly I find the 'something' just as difficult to comprehend as the mooted 'nothing'! I mean, dimensions? Matter? Energy? Who would have thought it?

BBT does not say that something came from nothing. BBT deals with after any event took place to cause the expansion. Anything that happened before that is not BBT.
A lot of people just assume that it came from "nothing."

(Apologies is this double posts- the server did something really weird.)

...And this is a part of the problem. Concepts like 'came from' are meaningless in this context.

I don't know but what I do know for a fact is that the reason I am here now is strictly deserved and demanded by physics. Why am I here and not before or after the Universe, its because the universe demanded that I be here and I deserve to be here due to that fact. I would like to point out that "What demanded the Universe" is the question at hand and not "why am I here".

What I can speculate is that the universe is indeed deserving of existence due to the fact that something demanded it exist in this particular state.

I feel like I am stating the obvious (in fact I am indeed) But I just wanted to make (said) clear.


By the way I was planning to have a little fun out of this.
Here it is, this would have been my comment.

I don't know but what I do know for a fact is that the universe was created some 6000 years ago. Praise Jesus.

Imagine how believable that would be.

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

...And this is a part of the problem. Concepts like 'came from' are meaningless in this context.

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about "came from" (whether nothing or something else) so I don't see where the problem is?

Absolutely, and if you read what I wrote you will see that that I never suggested that BBT said anything about 'came from', indeed my problem is with other people using these terms. I'm more interested in common misunderstandings about 'before' and other rather meaningless terms.

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

Absolutely, and if you read what I wrote you will see that that I never suggested that BBT said anything about 'came from', indeed my problem is with other people using these terms. I'm more interested in common misunderstandings about 'before' and other rather meaningless terms.

There was no big bang it is scientificly impossible.

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

There was no big bang it is scientificly impossible.

You are becoming a pest. Please stop posting in the real science forums. Keep your nonsense to Pseudoscience, New Hypotheses, or Trash Can.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

There was no big bang it is scientificly impossible.

You are becoming a pest. Please stop posting in the real science forums. Keep your nonsense to Pseudoscience, New Hypotheses, or Trash Can.

I agree with that, even I, the unintelligent but lovable oaf, found his posts to lower the collective intelligence of this forum. I'll admit Harold, I wasn't a huge fan of yours for quite some time, but, seeing you wield your ban-hammer of justice so deftly, I enjoy your presence.

Moeetheory has overstayed his welcome and is now gone.

In my opinion the pre big bang is nothing but pressure and heat. Maybe the Big Bang was caused by a flash point of the condensed material that made up the universe (which was smaller than this period according to scientists). Once the explosion was over, the forces were made, subatomic particles were formed, and the Boson Field, in which the Higgs Boson particles lie and turned energy into mass and vice versa was formed.

Unfortunately it wasn't an explosion.
Ergo "flashpoint" had nothing to do with it.

OK, so does anyone actually have any (rational) ideas or comments regarding the 'creation event'? Actually even 'event' sounds wrong but I hesitate to use the word 'creation' for obvious reasons, so perhaps someone can help me out with a suitable word or phrase for t=0?

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

...And this is a part of the problem. Concepts like 'came from' are meaningless in this context.

I noticed you posted on the BB in the physics sub forum as well.
I normally admit to being a layperson and perhaps that is the reason I am far from clear as to what you are saying.
The title of the thread is "Before the Big Bang".
Are you stating that questions, or hypotheses, about what happened before are "meaningless".

Originally Posted by Halliday

Are you stating that questions, or hypotheses, about what happened before are "meaningless".

Jeaunse23 is more than capable of answering for himself, but I want to weigh in on this question too.

Yes, it is meaningless. There are no theories nor a methodology to examine a pre-big bang Universe. There is no way to make any observations, (currently and probably not for a very long time if it is even possible at all) of the Universe "before" the Big Bang. We have no way of knowing if there was a "before" or what that state really was. Whether it was a steady state that lasted an extremely long time that finally became unstable or whether it literally was an origin of the Universe.
The Lambda CDM (Big Bang) does not even cover the Big Bang initiation or origin. It only covers what happened after. Because that is as far as we can make observations that have any accuracy.
A hypothesis on it cannot be tested.

What you are left with is just wild speculation. Which is fun, mind you, and something I enjoy engaging in, time to time. But it is not science.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Halliday

Are you stating that questions, or hypotheses, about what happened before are "meaningless".

Jeaunse23 is more than capable of answering for himself, but I want to weigh in on this question too.

Yes, it is meaningless. There are no theories nor a methodology to examine a pre-big bang Universe. There is no way to make any observations, (currently and probably not for a very long time if it is even possible at all) of the Universe "before" the Big Bang. We have no way of knowing if there was a "before" or what that state really was. Whether it was a steady state that lasted an extremely long time that finally became unstable or whether it literally was an origin of the Universe.
The Lambda CDM (Big Bang) does not even cover the Big Bang initiation or origin. It only covers what happened after. Because that is as far as we can make observations that have any accuracy.
A hypothesis on it cannot be tested.

What you are left with is just wild speculation. Which is fun, mind you, and something I enjoy engaging in, time to time. But it is not science.

I mentioned this, some time ago, on another thread.
If you type "Horizon- What Happened before the Big Bang" into Google you will be given information about a fairly recent BBC documentary on this topic. The programme was aimed at the ordinary viewer and did include a lot of speculation by some very prominent physicists/astronomers.
The fact that the programme was speculative, presented hypotheses that cannot yet be tested, and could not be called science does not, in my view, mean that the question asked was meaningless.
At what point in time, for example, did discussion about sending humans to the moon, and space generally, cease to be meaningless? Did this only happen when the general level of technology was at a level where such a journey became possible?
I find it very difficult to accept that any discussion of any question that may well be answered in the future could ever be termed meaningless. Pointless speculation perhaps, but not meaningless!

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Yes, it is meaningless. There are no theories nor a methodology to examine a pre-big bang Universe.

Well Penrose et al. would disagree: [1011.3706] Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

I'm not convinced there is anything in this but Penrose is one of the brightest people around (which doesn't stop him being wrong - as he is about AI and quantum effects in the brain).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Yes, it is meaningless. There are no theories nor a methodology to examine a pre-big bang Universe.

Well Penrose et al. would disagree: [1011.3706] Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

I'm not convinced there is anything in this but Penrose is one of the brightest people around (which doesn't stop him being wrong - as he is about AI and quantum effects in the brain).

As you say, Penrose is brilliant, but fallible. Several groups have re-examined the concentric circles, and the conclusion at this point is that they (the circles, I mean) do exist, but not at the significance levels originally claimed by Penrose. According to http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1656v1, Penrose evidently failed to normalize for the non-uniform sampling of WMAP data. Once that's taken into account, the significance levels drop to a value wholly consistent with existing cosmological models. Penrose may eventually publish a rebuttal, but as of now, it looks as if he might have made a boo-boo.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Pointless speculation perhaps, but not meaningless!

Well, this would be an argument of semantics. I see your point because, as I said, the speculation is fun. So maybe it has "meaning" for you, but no meaning for me because, as you said, it is pointless.
To me, they are one in the same.
For you, maybe it meaningful as a brain exercise. That has meaning for you.
"Fun" is not necessarily a meaning. For me, it must have meaningful answers for others before I would consider it to be a meaningful question.

I'm slightly off topic I know but my concern is with those people who talk about something 'coming from' nothing, probably because it can be a short step from this question to answers involving a creator. My understanding is that if there is no dimension then there is no before and no where so any talk about what happened before t=0 is nonsensical.
However, there are some models that suggest that time pre existed the BB in which case there is scope to discuss brane collisions etc. My understanding it that these theories are still very tentative and exotic and are certainly only mathematical models. Personally I just dont see the difficulty in conceptualising the absence of any dimension and frankly find it far more astonishing that dimension, mass, energy etc exist.

I've read all the posts in this thread and I do agree this is a highly interesting topic. For myself I choose to believe our universe operates completely within nature. Which means it's not an isolated event and it happens within a structure where these events are a natural occurring thing. They have happened before thay are happing now and will continue to happen in the future. Our current point of view doesn't allow us to percieve this larger structure or any other universes, but for those of us that believe in the concept of infinity, anything is possible.

The nice thing about this concept is it allows for a BB as we know it today. Or at least most of it.

I think theories are a very different thing to beliefs. I can choose to believe what I want and in fact I choose to believe that BBT is a good approximation to what occurred, however this does have the slightest bearing on what current theories point to and as they develop I may or may not choose to change my belief.

I'm really not sure what operating completely within nature can possibly mean.... I don't think I have ever come across any suggestion that the universe operates partially or 'outside' of nature, whatever that means...

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

I don't think I have ever come across any suggestion that the universe operates partially or 'outside' of nature, whatever that means...

Yes, you have. It is called Religion.

And what on earth does 'believing in the concept of infinity' mean? This has me completely stumped.....

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

I think theories are a very different thing to beliefs. I can choose to believe what I want and in fact I choose to believe that BBT is a good approximation to what occurred, however this does have the slightest bearing on what current theories point to and as they develop I may or may not choose to change my belief.

I'm really not sure what operating completely within nature can possibly mean.... I don't think I have ever come across any suggestion that the universe operates partially or 'outside' of nature, whatever that means...

Many proponents of the current BBT believe it is a one of a kind event, and that would place it outside of nature. Nothing that happens in nature is ever a one of a kind event.

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

And what on earth does 'believing in the concept of infinity' mean? This has me completely stumped.....

Well if our universe is finite as many think, infinity is everything else, whatever that may be. I tend to get around that problem by referring to our universe as the local universe. Like the Milkyway is our local galaxy.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Nothing that happens in nature is ever a one of a kind event.

Supposition, I think. We do not really know that.

Once could equally say that every single event is a unique one of a kind event, as they ll occur at different unique points in spacetime.

In the hypothetical multiverse, there are an infinite number of Big Bangs.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Nothing that happens in nature is ever a one of a kind event.

Supposition, I think. We do not really know that.

But what we do know, is there is more than one star. There is more than one galaxy. Nature is composed of cycles of birth/creation a life/existance, then death/energy depletion. All things go through this life cycle, including our local universe. But speaking of life cycles, black holes will still be around when all stars are nothing but burned out cinders. Their life cycles could be thousands of times longer than the life and death of every star in the local universe. Anyway I'm sure I made my point.

Well if our universe is finite as many think,

i thought current thinking was for a flat infinite universe? going by what the wmap results showed.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

Well if our universe is finite as many think,

i thought current thinking was for a flat infinite universe? going by what the wmap results showed.

Well that depends on how you define the universe. I define what we call our expanding universe (all the galaxies we see in every direction) as our local universe, and it is finite. But nobody really knows how to talk about the larger structure that our local universe was born into or even if it exists at all. I think it does but then I'm a nobody, so who cares what I think?

Originally Posted by Therapy

If there was a big bang then there was a little bang and all the other bangs. More importantly the bangs are continuing even as we speak.
Whenever two objects touches their borders there is a spark even on a nano level.

You are wrong.

If there was a big bang then there was a big gun and all the other guns. More importantly, the guns are being taken from our cold dead hands even as we speak.
Whenever two objects touch (and we can use the doll to show where they touch) there is a pop - even on a sea level.

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

I’m interested in the fact that even those who seem to me to be extremely rational, scientific and knowledgeable regarding cosmology, people who can demonstrate a good understanding of GR/Gravity etc. Still , when it comes to ‘Big Bang’ theories, or, more specifically, the ‘creation event’ talk about something ‘happening’ or something ‘coming from’ something ( or nothing rather). Surely this is actually nonsensical? If there is no-thing, no dimension, then there is no time in which something can occur. That the event happened seems self evident (although it is of course possible to debate even that assertion) but the concept of a creation event implies, to me at any rate a time and a place for the event to happen. Causality breaks down at the creation event and so it follows that trying to seek a cause/explanation is also nonsensical.
Am I wrong in this view?

Yes, I believe your logic is good. There could not logically have been a cause before a beginning of everything since it totally violates logic. For there to have been a cause for the initial state, then that cause, condition, or state, would have been before the beginning of everything that exists, which is nonsensical. For a finite universe model, where universe means everything that has ever existed, there must have been a beginning to time and change. An infinite model in time, by definition, could also have had no cause. In religion a single god could have had no cause.

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is another side to this BB theory that makes it sound illogical, if time and space were created with the BB, there must have been some thing for it to expand into.

a) The big bang theory doesn't say anything about time and space being created. It doesn't even say anything about matter and energy being created.

b) There doesn't need to be anything for space to expand into: in GR space itself is expanding.

Outside of that logic, it is suggested by science that space was completely filled with matter, yet everything must have a container, what is the container for space?

Why must everything have a container?

Alternatively, is there an inside or outside of space?

No.

If space is expanding and there is no center, how can we tell if it is contracting or expanding, can the red shift alone explain this?

We can tell it is expanding because everything (above a certain scale) is moving away from everything else. The distances between things are increasing. That is what expansion means.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Yeah... That one sounded like a personal appeal... BBT is well supported by strong evidence. Just because he doesn't find it plausible does not mean there is a conspiracy in the works nor does it mean the strong supportive evidence is suddenly invalid.
The "required suspension of disbelief" could be spelled out for all us faithful minions, I suppose...

The three foundational observations have been tested and proven again and again.

Hubble's Red shift according to distance is clearly a proven fact - though the constant gets adjusted from time to time.

CMBR is not only a proven fact but now it is very precisely mapped.

Abundance of smaller elements is a proven fact.


The rest is tested insofar as it has shown itself to be logically consistent upon extrapolation. As long as you add additional proposed mechanisms that can't be proven, like inflation (for the really fast stage of the expansion), or dark energy to keep the expansion accelerating in the present epoch - it remains alive and well.

Pretty much all the scientific community has to do when the theory runs into a wall is propose a new, unconfirm-able and uncaused magic force to show up and save the day. If "Science-Jesus" can't do it all by himself, we just bring in "Science Archangel Micheal" to give him a hand. Then "Science Gabriel" adds the finishing touch. Is it not obvious how little this differs from the religious hookah that came before it?

Why not just propose a magical force/entity/whatever to create the first three effects? That seems better than proposing an expansion, and then noting that the curvature of space would be all wacky if the initial stage of the expansion hadn't been really really fast and then proposing a new magical force that can make it happen really really fast (inflation) which will then mysteriously vanish afterward leaving no evidence of it ever having existed (except that it corrected the problem).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Originally Posted by Therapy

Sorry, I can't let you just pass this one. Are you saying space is creating itself? into itself?

Things are just getting further apart (at very large scales).

I guess you have mental model of the universe like a big balloon which is getting bigger. That is not realistic. Imagine the universe is infinite so it can't get bigger, but things can still get further apart (or, if you prefer, the universe gets less dense over time).

The same is true if the universe is finite. In this case the universe has no boundary and so there is no edge and so no "outside" (nor centre).

At the risk of asking stupid questions, what does the BB say happened? Was there already matter or no matter?

The big bang says that it started out hot and dense then it expanded and cooled. At some point it was cool enough for matter as we understand it to be formed from the energy present. We don't know what happened earlier than that.

I will let you help me there becuase I know of nothing that does not have a container, a cover, a skin. That realy does not sound right to me what you are saying, but I know you have a reason why you are saying it.

"Everything I know" is not a good model for understanding the universe. Everything I know behaves as either a solid or a wave. But fundamental particles don't. Everything I know has a relative speed which varies depending how fast you are going. But light doesn't. Everything I know is finite. But space might not be. Everything I know has a physical size. But fundamental particles appear to be of zero size.

It turns out that you can't always extrapolate from everyday experience to explain everything. That is one reason why "common sense" is completely useless.

Therapy,

There is another side to this BB theory that makes it sound illogical, if time and space were created with the BB, there must have been some thing for it to expand into. Outside of that logic, it is suggested by science that space was completely filled with matter, yet everything must have a container, what is the container for space? Alternatively, is there an inside or outside of space? If space is expanding and there is no center, how can we tell if it is contracting or expanding, can the red shift alone explain this?

No, I don't think this aspect of the BB violates logic. It is one of the very few things about the BB model that I have no argument with. Think of the simplest characteristic of space: it is the distance between and volume within matter, the volume that matter and energy collectively occupies. According to the BB model consensus version, for a finite universe of both time and space -- both time and space would have had a beginning. In this BB version space was the volume occupied by the beginning entity, and as the beginning entity expanded and matter/ energy became farther apart, along with it accordingly the volume of space expanded and the creation of new space went along with it. Time in the same way would have had a beginning. We could call the beginning of time as the first change in that which existed.

Space outside the bounds of matter and energy seems like a meaningless concept, as would the meaningless concept of time if nothing existed that could ever change concerning relative conditions

As you know intuition is a part of the spirit world,

There is no 'spirit world'.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by AlexG

As you know intuition is a part of the spirit world,

There is no 'spirit world'.

That is debatable

No it's not.

I don't want to argue with that, if you think it is not debatable then I guess its not, but only for you, for me it is.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

It's only "debatable" to you because you won't accept the facts as facts.
You prefer unsupported speculation.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Therapy, as Strange has pointed out what makes sense to you has no bearing on reality or how things work. You need to do more study and leave your common sense at the door. Everyday experience of macroscopic non-relativistic events is not a good benchmark to apply to in trying to understand fundamental physics...

I think what you are saying does not make sense to me. If it does not make sense to me, what is the point. If I leave my common sense at the door, I will have to stay outside because all I have in order to ask the questions, is my common sense.

The problem is, human common sense and intuition have been shaped by our experiences in living in a low-energy, slow moving, macro sized world. This environment is actually only a small subset of the entire universe, and in other realms, i.e. relativistic, high-energy and quantum sized, the universe behaves very differently than we are acustomed to.

Common sense and intuition are things that evolve, without intuition science is in danger of becoming a dogma with no new ideas. The mathematician David Hilbert once said;

“A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street.”

I think the same sentiment should flourish within science.

Some of the aspects of Big Bang theory have been a concern for me. The term Big Bang was coined by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the term is widely purported to have been used in a pejorative way as he likened it to a young lady bursting forth from a cake. One reason he disliked the Big Bang theory so much was the inference that the universe had a beginning, and that is one concern that I also share. It may seem an impotent objection in the light of the serendipitous discovery by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the CMBR in 1964. Often seen as the smoking gun of proof of the Big Bang theory, the discovery that lead to a major decline in the support for Sir Fred Hoyle’s “steady state” theory.

However just because all that is observable does undoubtedly share the same moment of origin or “big bang nucleosynthesis” it could be the result of a continuum. If the universe is infinite, and intuitively I believe that it must be, then everything about its existence must be infinite, including the “big bang” itself. I believe for what it’s worth that the “big bang” could never have stopped, or of had a beginning. Anything coming into existence after our moment of “creation” will be at an infinite distance from us and anything that came into existence before our “big bang” moment will also be separated by infinity. That is not to say that there was a before the “big bang” continuum just a before our “big bang” moment.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Common sense and intuition are things that evolve, without intuition science is in danger of becoming a dogma with no new ideas.

The important point is that science tests the ideas that come from imagination or intuition. It often turns out that the intuition is wrong but, as you say, it may have started us off on some useful research. A lot of useful discoveries have been made by proving what we think we know is wrong.

The mathematician David Hilbert once said;

“A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street.”

I find it hard to believe that Hilbert would have said that as it is so obviously wrong. Of course, there is always some level of abstraction that can be explained. For example: "Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's last theorem". The trouble is as soon as you try and get into any detail, it rapidly gets to the point where it cannot be explained to the "man on the street" (unless he happens to be a pure mathematician). You end up saying that, "in order to do this he had to first prove this thing (which you won't understand) and show how it was related to this other thing (that you won't understand) ..."

I think the same sentiment should flourish within science.

And there are people, scientists and non-scientists, who devote their lives trying to explain science to the public. Which is great. But they can usually only do this at a grossly simplified, and potentially misleading, form.

The term Big Bang was coined by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle

Correct.

the term is widely purported to have been used in a pejorative way

It may be widely taken that way. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

One reason he disliked the Big Bang theory so much was the inference that the universe had a beginning, and that is one concern that I also share.

The universe doesn't really care what you think. If it had a beginning (which we don't know) then that is just too bad.

However just because all that is observable does undoubtedly share the same moment of origin or “big bang nucleosynthesis” it could be the result of a continuum.

It could be. But where is the evidence?

If the universe is infinite, and intuitively I believe that it must be

Again, the universe doesn't care about your beliefs. If the universe is finite, you will just have to accept that. There are people who don't like the idea it might be infinite. Well, if it turns out to be infinite, you will be happy and they won't. Either way, the universe is what it is.

, then everything about its existence must be infinite, including the “big bang” itself.

Not necessarily, it is quite possible for the universe to be infinite in extent but to have had a beginning. Even if it had a beginning, it could still be infinite in time if it has no end. Or it could be spatially finite but have always existed in some form.

We don't know and that is why we rely on science rather than "intuition" which varies from one person to another and can, therefore, tell us nothing of any value.

Anything coming into existence after our moment of “creation” will be at an infinite distance from us

So you are assuming a "moment of creation" even though you disagreed with the idea earlier. I wouldn't assume any such thing until we have some evidence for it.

And are you saying that all those stars and galaxies we see in the sky are an infinite distance away?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Common sense and intuition are things that evolve, without intuition science is in danger of becoming a dogma with no new ideas.

The important point is that science tests the ideas that come from imagination or intuition. It often turns out that the intuition is wrong but, as you say, it may have started us off on some useful research. A lot of useful discoveries have been made by proving what we think we know is wrong.

How do we test something that only happened once?

Or a better question: what possible observation could anyone ever make that would refute the BBT?

The observation that a steady initial expansion would have lead to warped space was resolved by proposing "Inflation". An equally bizarre and un-explainable phenomenon to the expansion itself.

I think no matter what is observed, even something the absolutely refutes the BBT, it won't overturn the theory. It will just give us another new and interesting modification.

That's what an un-disprovable theory is. It's one that has enough freedom to modify itself that no future observation will or can, ever endanger it.

Originally Posted by kojax

How do we test something that only happened once?

You can, for example, build (mathematical) models and see what they predict and then test that against observations.

Or a better question: what possible observation could anyone ever make that would refute the BBT?

Speedfreek listed several in another thread where forrest noble thinks he has evidence against the big bang theory (but then he thinks everything is evidence against the big bang). Finding stars/galaxies older than some age. Finding evidence for Hoyle's "creation field" (the steady state theory needed even more "magic" than the big bang). A theory of quantum gravity that proves expansion of space is impossible. And so on.

The observation that a steady initial expansion would have lead to warped space was resolved by proposing "Inflation". An equally bizarre and un-explainable phenomenon to the expansion itself.

That isn't the reason that inflation was proposed. But some explanation is needed ... but not everyone is convince inflation is the answer.

I think no matter what is observed, even something the absolutely refutes the BBT, it won't overturn the theory.

Presumably people said exactly the same about the steady state universe before evidence of the big bang was found. Theories are forever being modified and overturned. It's what science does.

If the spontaneous generation of protons could be observed, that would be a serious blow to the BB.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Common sense and intuition are things that evolve, without intuition science is in danger of becoming a dogma with no new ideas.

The important point is that science tests the ideas that come from imagination or intuition. It often turns out that the intuition is wrong but, as you say, it may have started us off on some useful research. A lot of useful discoveries have been made by proving what we think we know is wrong.

I agree in the main to what you are saying but sometimes I think that creative thinking can be prematurely snuffed out by such tests, sometimes such tests are flawed in a way unthinkable until the new idea has had time to evolve.

Some years ago I asked a professional academic to look at a theory that I had that relied in part on the understanding that there was a distance relative to an observer where the recessional velocity equalled the speed of light “ …an interface between luminal and super-luminal recessional velocity”. In response to this idea came this comment “….it cannot, if we accept relativity, experimentally sound reasons for doing so”. Although their knowledge was far superior to mine with many of the other comments being invaluable to me I had independently realized the existence of what is called the Hubble Sphere.

The mathematician David Hilbert once said;

“A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street.”

I find it hard to believe that Hilbert would have said that as it is so obviously wrong. Of course, there is always some level of abstraction that can be explained. For example: "Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's last theorem". The trouble is as soon as you try and get into any detail, it rapidly gets to the point where it cannot be explained to the "man on the street" (unless he happens to be a pure mathematician). You end up saying that, "in order to do this he had to first prove this thing (which you won't understand) and show how it was related to this other thing (that you won't understand) ..."

You are probably right but who knows given enough time and the ability to make it interesting.

One reason he disliked the Big Bang theory so much was the inference that the universe had a beginning, and that is one concern that I also share.

The universe doesn't really care what you think. If it had a beginning (which we don't know) then that is just too bad.

As a humanist I would worry if the universe did think, I know without the universe I could not and therefore I am.

For nothing to exist nothing can exist, proof by contradiction, therefor the universe has always existed. If space, time and all that we see does have a beginning then they have formed from something that exists. If energy cannot be destroyed then it has always existed. If matter is formed from energy then space and time may be an emergent property of that matter.

However just because all that is observable does undoubtedly share the same moment of origin or “big bang nucleosynthesis” it could be the result of a continuum.

It could be. But where is the evidence?

I think it self-evident.

If the universe is infinite, and intuitively I believe that it must be

Again, the universe doesn't care about your beliefs. If the universe is finite, you will just have to accept that. There are people who don't like the idea it might be infinite. Well, if it turns out to be infinite, you will be happy and they won't. Either way, the universe is what it is.

Yes and probably what I think

Anything coming into existence after our moment of “creation” will be at an infinite distance from us

So you are assuming a "moment of creation" even though you disagreed with the idea earlier. I wouldn't assume any such thing until we have some evidence for it.

And are you saying that all those stars and galaxies we see in the sky are an infinite distance away?

Creation was the wrong word, formation would have been better. Everything that we see now or in the future will be at a finite distance, that is obvious if we are to consider that light travels at a finite velocity relative to us. If time and distance is an emergent property of matter then any formation of matter not forming at the same moment that we did would be at an infinite distance with its own peculiar moment of formation including time.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by kojax

How do we test something that only happened once?

You can, for example, build (mathematical) models and see what they predict and then test that against observations.

Or a better question: what possible observation could anyone ever make that would refute the BBT?

Speedfreek listed several in another thread where forrest noble thinks he has evidence against the big bang theory (but then he thinks everything is evidence against the big bang). Finding stars/galaxies older than some age. Finding evidence for Hoyle's "creation field" (the steady state theory needed even more "magic" than the big bang). A theory of quantum gravity that proves expansion of space is impossible. And so on.

I'm getting the impression that what will be required will be for a better model to emerge. However I'm not so sure one is needed. The BBT wins largely on application of Occam's Razor. One phenomenon that is capable of explaining three diverse observations.

However, really it's three phenomena so far as I count it. 1 - The expansion itself. 2 - Inflation. 3 - Dark Energy.

I think we really wouldn't be doing any worse for ourselves if we went the other direction and proposed three phenomena outright.

The observation that a steady initial expansion would have lead to warped space was resolved by proposing "Inflation". An equally bizarre and un-explainable phenomenon to the expansion itself.

That isn't the reason that inflation was proposed. But some explanation is needed ... but not everyone is convince inflation is the answer.

I'm glad that everyone isn't convinced.

I get the feeling sometimes that affirming the BBT is one of those confessions of belief you have to make in order to get into the club. I'm glad to see that at least some of it's stranger offshoots are allowed to be doubted.

I understand explanation being needed. However I also enjoy looking for answers, especially answers that I stand little chance of finding. It's a great way to fight off boredom. Humanity needs for there to be some source of wonder. Leaving things open like that opens the door for cranks to drum up followings for their wacky ideas, but it also makes people interested. If NASA could offer people wonder, they'd probably get better funding.

Explanations are needed, but we don't need them right now.

Originally Posted by AlexG

If the spontaneous generation of protons could be observed, that would be a serious blow to the BB.

Hey. Thanks. :-) That's very constructive.

Usually you just tell me I'm a crank. I may have to begin reading your posts more seriously.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Common sense and intuition are things that evolve, without intuition science is in danger of becoming a dogma with no new ideas.

The important point is that science tests the ideas that come from imagination or intuition. It often turns out that the intuition is wrong but, as you say, it may have started us off on some useful research. A lot of useful discoveries have been made by proving what we think we know is wrong.

I agree in the main to what you are saying but sometimes I think that creative thinking can be prematurely snuffed out by such tests, sometimes such tests are flawed in a way unthinkable until the new idea has had time to evolve.

Some years ago I asked a professional academic to look at a theory that I had that relied in part on the understanding that there was a distance relative to an observer where the recessional velocity equalled the speed of light “ …an interface between luminal and super-luminal recessional velocity”. In response to this idea came this comment “….it cannot, if we accept relativity, experimentally sound reasons for doing so”. Although their knowledge was far superior to mine with many of the other comments being invaluable to me I had independently realized the existence of what is called the Hubble Sphere.

The mathematician David Hilbert once said;

“A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street.”

I find it hard to believe that Hilbert would have said that as it is so obviously wrong. Of course, there is always some level of abstraction that can be explained. For example: "Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's last theorem". The trouble is as soon as you try and get into any detail, it rapidly gets to the point where it cannot be explained to the "man on the street" (unless he happens to be a pure mathematician). You end up saying that, "in order to do this he had to first prove this thing (which you won't understand) and show how it was related to this other thing (that you won't understand) ..."

You are probably right but who knows given enough time and the ability to make it interesting.

One reason he disliked the Big Bang theory so much was the inference that the universe had a beginning, and that is one concern that I also share.

The universe doesn't really care what you think. If it had a beginning (which we don't know) then that is just too bad.

As a humanist I would worry if the universe did think, I know without the universe I could not and therefore I am.

For nothing to exist nothing can exist, proof by contradiction, therefor the universe has always existed. If space, time and all that we see does have a beginning then they have formed from something that exists. If energy cannot be destroyed then it has always existed. If matter is formed from energy then space and time may be an emergent property of that matter.

However just because all that is observable does undoubtedly share the same moment of origin or “big bang nucleosynthesis” it could be the result of a continuum.

It could be. But where is the evidence?

I think it self-evident.

If the universe is infinite, and intuitively I believe that it must be

Again, the universe doesn't care about your beliefs. If the universe is finite, you will just have to accept that. There are people who don't like the idea it might be infinite. Well, if it turns out to be infinite, you will be happy and they won't. Either way, the universe is what it is.

Yes and probably what I think

Anything coming into existence after our moment of “creation” will be at an infinite distance from us

So you are assuming a "moment of creation" even though you disagreed with the idea earlier. I wouldn't assume any such thing until we have some evidence for it.

And are you saying that all those stars and galaxies we see in the sky are an infinite distance away?

Creation was the wrong word, formation would have been better. Everything that we see now or in the future will be at a finite distance, that is obvious if we are to consider that light travels at a finite velocity relative to us. If time and distance is an emergent property of matter then any formation of matter not forming at the same moment that we did would be at an infinite distance with its own peculiar moment of formation including time.

Perhaps origination is even a better word. Time and distance I think is indeed an emergent property of matter and before the origination of universe there would be no matter (at least the matter that we know of) or even a moment because time hadn't emerged then. And after the origination of our universe we do not know of origination of any other universe. In this scenario the question of "matter not forming at the same moment that we did" does not arise. (I enjoyed reading this thread)

I get the feeling sometimes that affirming the BBT is one of those confessions of belief you have to make in order to get into the club. I'm glad to see that at least some of it's stranger offshoots are allowed to be doubted.

While the overall model of BBT is accepted by pretty much all physicists, there is much controversy about the finer details. Inflation, for example, is not an automatic result of the BBT model, it was worked in retrospectively to explain and solve certain problems. It is also not universally and unquestioningly accepted; I know of a few cosmologists who have serious doubts as to inflation.

Regardless, I doubt that the overall idea of an expanding universe will be discarded anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Perhaps origination is even a better word. Time and distance I think is indeed an emergent property of matter and before the origination of universe there would be no matter (at least the matter that we know of) or even a moment because time hadn't emerged then. And after the origination of our universe we do not know of origination of any other universe. In this scenario the question of "matter not forming at the same moment that we did" does not arise. (I enjoyed reading this thread)

I am pleased that you too think that time and distance are emergent properties of matter, do you also agree that matter was produced from energy?

If that energy exists separate to the concept of time and distance and is responsible for the matter that we see in in the universe, then in an infinite universe that energy was and is infinite, it can never be depleted, therefore a continuum, the singularity responsible for the BB, the BB that is the progenitor of our aeon of time (aeon of time is a phrase that I have borrowed from Sir Roger Penrose).

We know that when energy produces matter it also produces anti-matter in equal proportions. Interestingly when we consider time and distance as an emergent property of matter the conundrum of “what happened to all the anti-matter” is easily solved; matter and anti-matter produce their own peculiar aeon of time. You may like to consider it as two separate universes but I think the term universe covers it all.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Perhaps origination is even a better word. Time and distance I think is indeed an emergent property of matter and before the origination of universe there would be no matter (at least the matter that we know of) or even a moment because time hadn't emerged then. And after the origination of our universe we do not know of origination of any other universe. In this scenario the question of "matter not forming at the same moment that we did" does not arise. (I enjoyed reading this thread)

I am pleased that you too think that time and distance are emergent properties of matter, do you also agree that matter was produced from energy?

If that energy exists separate to the concept of time and distance and is responsible for the matter that we see in in the universe, then in an infinite universe that energy was and is infinite, it can never be depleted, therefore a continuum, the singularity responsible for the BB, the BB that is the progenitor of our aeon of time (aeon of time is a phrase that I have borrowed from Sir Roger Penrose).

We know that when energy produces matter it also produces anti-matter in equal proportions. Interestingly when we consider time and distance as an emergent property of matter the conundrum of “what happened to all the anti-matter” is easily solved; matter and anti-matter produce their own peculiar aeon of time. You may like to consider it as two separate universes but I think the term universe covers it all.

I do not have a reason to disagree. Energy being cause of universe to exist, I humbly acknowledge that the ultimate cause of causing the energy to cause the existence of universe can be nothing less than something which is beyond our comprehension. This is true especially if this ultimate cause caused energy to be infinite. I do not intend to start any debate with any one but simply stated what I am Intuitively convince of.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Perhaps origination is even a better word. Time and distance I think is indeed an emergent property of matter and before the origination of universe there would be no matter (at least the matter that we know of) or even a moment because time hadn't emerged then. And after the origination of our universe we do not know of origination of any other universe. In this scenario the question of "matter not forming at the same moment that we did" does not arise. (I enjoyed reading this thread)

I am pleased that you too think that time and distance are emergent properties of matter, do you also agree that matter was produced from energy?

If that energy exists separate to the concept of time and distance and is responsible for the matter that we see in in the universe, then in an infinite universe that energy was and is infinite, it can never be depleted, therefore a continuum, the singularity responsible for the BB, the BB that is the progenitor of our aeon of time (aeon of time is a phrase that I have borrowed from Sir Roger Penrose).

We know that when energy produces matter it also produces anti-matter in equal proportions. Interestingly when we consider time and distance as an emergent property of matter the conundrum of “what happened to all the anti-matter” is easily solved; matter and anti-matter produce their own peculiar aeon of time. You may like to consider it as two separate universes but I think the term universe covers it all.

I do not have a reason to disagree. Energy being cause of universe to exist, I humbly acknowledge that the ultimate cause of causing the energy to cause the existence of universe can be nothing less than something which is beyond our comprehension. This is true especially if this ultimate cause caused energy to be infinite. I do not intend to start any debate with any one but simply stated what I am Intuitively convince of.

It is not a good idea to be intuitively convinced of anything. If you want to have a reasonable picture of what we know and what not, then you simply can't be convinced about something you have no real explanation for believing in the first place.

I too feel more at ease with an infinite universe, but I can't make the presumption of then knowing that to be true, simply because I want it to be. That is a potentially dangerous way to determine truths about the universe we live in. You have to acknowledge that since we don't know everything about the universe, and in the case of me and you, even far less than what is known by the actual scientists involved in that study, there can be no reasonable foundation for believing anything about the universe based from an origin as spurious as "a feeling" or "intuition". If there is one thing that science has taught us, is that intuition can very often be spectacularly wrong. Reading the first page of a quantum mechanics book will confirm that point very clearly. And large parts of quantum mechanics are some of the most precisely verified bits of science ever discovered.

It is very tempting indeed to let your mind wander about all sorts of possibilities and it can be very entertaining indeed. I too have quite a few layman's "theories" about a wide variety of topics, but I don't presume to imagine that it has any real merit in a scientific sense. The scientific method is there for a very good reason indeed. It is the best way we know about to try and find out about our universe bar none, including various forms of "revealed truths".

There is also no good reason to presume that the origin of the universe will be forever beyond our comprehension. Thinking that way about anything without very good reasons is nothing more than a barrier to ultimate understanding. Your reason for believing that is again nothing more than a guess based on the demonstrably flawed premise of intuition.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

I am pleased that you too think that time and distance are emergent properties of matter, do you also agree that matter was produced from energy?

I also agree that time and distance are emergent properties of matter. But was there a reason why you chose to use the word "distance" which represents a dimentional characteristic, rather than using the word "space" which applies to extension and volume?

As for myself, I think energy does not/ cannot exist separate from matter or field, therefore in its various forms could also be described as an emergent property of matter or the Zero Point Field.

Originally Posted by AlexG

If the spontaneous generation of protons could be observed, that would be a serious blow to the BB.

"Spontaneous generation" from the Zero Point Field was one proposal of the Steady State Model, but it also proposed other possibilities for new-matter-creation such as "conditioned" generation of new matter. One such suggested condition involved creation of new matter just outside black holes at the base of their polar jets. This would seem more likely if there were a physical character to the Zero Point Field, such as in the dark matter hypothesis, Higgs particles, or a physical aether of some kind involving unknown physical constituents.

Good to see you back, Kalster

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Perhaps origination is even a better word. Time and distance I think is indeed an emergent property of matter and before the origination of universe there would be no matter (at least the matter that we know of) or even a moment because time hadn't emerged then. And after the origination of our universe we do not know of origination of any other universe. In this scenario the question of "matter not forming at the same moment that we did" does not arise. (I enjoyed reading this thread)

I am pleased that you too think that time and distance are emergent properties of matter, do you also agree that matter was produced from energy?

If that energy exists separate to the concept of time and distance and is responsible for the matter that we see in in the universe, then in an infinite universe that energy was and is infinite, it can never be depleted, therefore a continuum, the singularity responsible for the BB, the BB that is the progenitor of our aeon of time (aeon of time is a phrase that I have borrowed from Sir Roger Penrose).

We know that when energy produces matter it also produces anti-matter in equal proportions. Interestingly when we consider time and distance as an emergent property of matter the conundrum of “what happened to all the anti-matter” is easily solved; matter and anti-matter produce their own peculiar aeon of time. You may like to consider it as two separate universes but I think the term universe covers it all.

I do not have a reason to disagree. Energy being cause of universe to exist, I humbly acknowledge that the ultimate cause of causing the energy to cause the existence of universe can be nothing less than something which is beyond our comprehension. This is true especially if this ultimate cause caused energy to be infinite. I do not intend to start any debate with any one but simply stated what I am Intuitively convince of.

It is not a good idea to be intuitively convinced of anything. If you want to have a reasonable picture of what we know and what not, then you simply can't be convinced about something you have no real explanation for believing in the first place.

I too feel more at ease with an infinite universe, but I can't make the presumption of then knowing that to be true, simply because I want it to be. That is a potentially dangerous way to determine truths about the universe we live in. You have to acknowledge that since we don't know everything about the universe, and in the case of me and you, even far less than what is known by the actual scientists involved in that study, there can be no reasonable foundation for believing anything about the universe based from an origin as spurious as "a feeling" or "intuition". If there is one thing that science has taught us, is that intuition can very often be spectacularly wrong. Reading the first page of a quantum mechanics book will confirm that point very clearly. And large parts of quantum mechanics are some of the most precisely verified bits of science ever discovered.

It is very tempting indeed to let your mind wander about all sorts of possibilities and it can be very entertaining indeed. I too have quite a few layman's "theories" about a wide variety of topics, but I don't presume to imagine that it has any real merit in a scientific sense. The scientific method is there for a very good reason indeed. It is the best way we know about to try and find out about our universe bar none, including various forms of "revealed truths".

There is also no good reason to presume that the origin of the universe will be forever beyond our comprehension. Thinking that way about anything without very good reasons is nothing more than a barrier to ultimate understanding. Your reason for believing that is again nothing more than a guess based on the demonstrably flawed premise of intuition.

When I was a little kid and was asked what would I want to be when I grow up I use to say "a Scientist ". That should give you an idea of the kind of respect I have for the people who dedicate their lives to study Science. So without being disrespectful to them I would like to say that the ability of studying science has been actually granted to them and not self created (with which I think not all scientist would disagree with me, but I could be wrong).

You say the scientist have proved intuitions wrong. I do not know whose intuitions they have proved wrong, but for me this is a subjective matter. I would never burden a scientist to explain my intuitions by claiming its objective (not that they would care anyway ). The day I will go to a scientist to explain my intuitions would be the day I go to astronomer to treat the cancer!

I do not believe that origins of universe will remain beyond our comprehension for ever, I only believe that the Originator will! Again no intention of creating any barrier by imposing my faith on anyone but I do not believe that believing in the possibility of The Originator can cause any barriers, rather it closes at least one door to the barrier in the discovery. But being a layman in the field of science I understand that my opinion can easily be discarded by many scientists.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

There is also no good reason to presume that the origin of the universe will be forever beyond our comprehension. Thinking that way about anything without very good reasons is nothing more than a barrier to ultimate understanding. Your reason for believing that is again nothing more than a guess based on the demonstrably flawed premise of intuition.

Neither is there any reason to presume that the origin of the universe will ever be within our comprehension. The history of science is that we learn a little bit, then what we learned leads to even more questions. I think probably this process will continue indefinitely. I don't know that there is such thing as "ultimate understanding."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by KALSTER

There is also no good reason to presume that the origin of the universe will be forever beyond our comprehension. Thinking that way about anything without very good reasons is nothing more than a barrier to ultimate understanding. Your reason for believing that is again nothing more than a guess based on the demonstrably flawed premise of intuition.

Neither is there any reason to presume that the origin of the universe will ever be within our comprehension. The history of science is that we learn a little bit, then what we learned leads to even more questions. I think probably this process will continue indefinitely. I don't know that there is such thing as "ultimate understanding."

I would like to add my two cents worth to your profound saying: "I don't know that there is such thing as "ultimate understanding."

There is no such thing as "ultimate understanding" for us humans, but that opens up the opportunity for us to keep gaining understanding for ever!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by KALSTER

There is also no good reason to presume that the origin of the universe will be forever beyond our comprehension. Thinking that way about anything without very good reasons is nothing more than a barrier to ultimate understanding. Your reason for believing that is again nothing more than a guess based on the demonstrably flawed premise of intuition.

Neither is there any reason to presume that the origin of the universe will ever be within our comprehension. The history of science is that we learn a little bit, then what we learned leads to even more questions. I think probably this process will continue indefinitely. I don't know that there is such thing as "ultimate understanding."

True, though whether we presume that we will one day comprehend the origin of the universe or that we don't make a presumption about that has the same impact, i.e. we move forwards and continue to learn as much as we can. However, when we start to make presumptions about what we will never know, or start to allow truths to be dictated to us from spurious sources, that is when we start to create barriers.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I too feel more at ease with an infinite universe, but I can't make the presumption of then knowing that to be true, simply because I want it to be. That is a potentially dangerous way to determine truths about the universe we live in. You have to acknowledge that since we don't know everything about the universe, and in the case of me and you, even far less than what is known by the actual scientists involved in that study, there can be no reasonable foundation for believing anything about the universe based from an origin as spurious as "a feeling" or "intuition

My belief that the universe is infinite is not based on a whimsical notion. The origin of my belief may have been intuition but since then has been galvanized by a thought process known as proof by contradiction. There cannot be in reality a place of non-existence, nothing can come from nothing. For nothing to exist nothing can exist and therefore how can the totality of existence be finite. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument and not at all spurious.

If there is one thing that science has taught us, is that intuition can very often be spectacularly wrong. Reading the first page of a quantum mechanics book will confirm that point very clearly. And large parts of quantum mechanics are some of the most precisely verified bits of science ever discovered.

You can know many things about something, useful things, and yet still not fully understand them, to say we shall never understand them may be a truth, but that is not my ambition.

It is very tempting indeed to let your mind wander about all sorts of possibilities and it can be very entertaining indeed. I too have quite a few layman's "theories" about a wide variety of topics, but I don't presume to imagine that it has any real merit in a scientific sense. The scientific method is there for a very good reason indeed. It is the best way we know about to try and find out about our universe bar none, including various forms of "revealed truths".

Let us not forget that first; an idea has to emerge for it to be tested by the scientific method. Many ideas perpetrated by laypeople have bore advances in science (sometimes airbrushed out of history). It is not an act of heresy to think of new ideas or to question the standard theory, “nullius in verba” the royal society's motto roughly translates to ‘take nobody's word for it’. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

“A fact is a statement that everyone believes, innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective”. ….Edward Teller

The intention of my musings is to initiate thought and debate. I do not preach them as facts or “revealed truths” I sincerely hope that is not how I come across. I value the opportunity to debate these interesting subject matters and thank you for your imput.

(double post)

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I too feel more at ease with an infinite universe, but I can't make the presumption of then knowing that to be true, simply because I want it to be. That is a potentially dangerous way to determine truths about the universe we live in. You have to acknowledge that since we don't know everything about the universe, and in the case of me and you, even far less than what is known by the actual scientists involved in that study, there can be no reasonable foundation for believing anything about the universe based from an origin as spurious as "a feeling" or "intuition

My belief that the universe is infinite is not based on a whimsical notion. The origin of my belief may have been intuition but since then has been galvanized by a thought process known as proof by contradiction. There cannot be in reality a place of non-existence, nothing can come from nothing. For nothing to exist nothing can exist and therefore how can the totality of existence be finite. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument and not at all spurious.

If there is one thing that science has taught us, is that intuition can very often be spectacularly wrong. Reading the first page of a quantum mechanics book will confirm that point very clearly. And large parts of quantum mechanics are some of the most precisely verified bits of science ever discovered.

You can know many things about something, useful things, and yet still not fully understand them, to say we shall never understand them may be a truth, but that is not my ambition.

It is very tempting indeed to let your mind wander about all sorts of possibilities and it can be very entertaining indeed. I too have quite a few layman's "theories" about a wide variety of topics, but I don't presume to imagine that it has any real merit in a scientific sense. The scientific method is there for a very good reason indeed. It is the best way we know about to try and find out about our universe bar none, including various forms of "revealed truths".

Let us not forget that first; an idea has to emerge for it to be tested by the scientific method. Many ideas perpetrated by laypeople have bore advances in science (sometimes airbrushed out of history). It is not an act of heresy to think of new ideas or to question the standard theory, “nullius in verba” the royal society's motto roughly translates to ‘take nobody's word for it’. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

“A fact is a statement that everyone believes, innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective”. ….Edward Teller

The intention of my musings is to initiate thought and debate. I do not preach them as facts or “revealed truths” I sincerely hope that is not how I come across. I value the opportunity to debate these interesting subject matters and thank you for your imput.

OK, let's go to your logic again. Of course most all know that what seems completely logical to one person may seem totally illogical to another. But formal logic does have rules to it. Here was your quote:

......a thought process known as proof by contradiction: Reductio ad absurdum: There cannot be in reality a place of non-existence, nothing can come from nothing. For nothing to exist nothing can exist and therefore how can the totality of existence be finite. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument and not at all spurious.

Reductio ad absurdum: "is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that the opposite would be false, untenable, or that absurdity would follow from its denial. Another name for it is "proof by contradiction." The simple principle of it is accepted in both Philosophy and Logic. A hilarious exaggeration of the logic would be: "If that were true, then pigs could fly."

So now let's look at your example:

Logic:

There cannot be in reality a place of non-existence

I agree that this is a valid statement but it relates to just some possible definitions of the word "nothing." So the statement is arguable until an agreed definition of word "nothing" is accepted. I think the distinction must be made in this definition between "nothing" and "space." For instance let's define space as "the distance between matter and the volume that matter occupies and collectively encompasses." It would follow from this definition that space cannot exist outside the bounds of matter. Then the word "nothing" could be defined as non-existence when refering to outside the bounds of space and reality. Within space we do know of one certain entity which exists which we call the Zero Point Field. It is certainly conceivable that the Zero Point Field could extend beyond the bounds of matter. If so then we would need to add it to our definition of "space." The definition of space could then be distilled to this definition: "The volume that matter and field collectively occupy." This would include every possible reality including multiverses, if there were any, either a finite or infinite universe in matter, and/or space. OK with this possible definition of space in mind your first statement can be accepted since what would be the meaning to a volume outside the bounds of matter and field? It would be a meaningless concept.

Now let's follow with your argument.

nothing can come from nothing.

Yes, this is a long-time accepted principle of logic going back to the Greek philosophers. In Rome the principle was stated a little more humorously as: "from nothing, nothing will come." Today the principle is commonly explained as "something can't come from nothing." Stephen Hawking proposed the possibility of our universe being generated by the Zero Point Field (ZPF), which some consider close to nothing. But in reality there is supposedly more energy in the ZPF than in all the matter in the universe. If so then the ZPF may be the farthest think away from nothing that is possible So let's also accept your second principle.

Now, for your next statement.

For nothing to exist nothing can exist

This is also a logical statement, even though it might be stated more clearly, but that's not important if the statement can be understood. I would reword it but I won't because that might change your intended meaning. But as I understand it, this statement contradicts the first statement which is the intent of the logic to show that the conclusion that space is finite must be false. OK, for the sake of argument let's also accept this statement. Now let's look at your conclusion.

(and)

therefore how can the totality of existence be finite

OK this conclusion would be valid if one adheres to the definition of space below. But it would not be a valid conclusion based upon the definition of space that I gave above. According to definition of space below, your conclusion would be valid, in that matter could be either finite or infinite, the ZPF could be finite or infinite, but space must be infinite. The question would then arise: what would be the meaning of space in the absence of matter and field? This definition below states that space is boundless. Your conclusion that the universe is infinite would not necessarily be valid based upon the definition for space given above.

Space is a boundless three or four dimensional extension in which objects and events have relative positions and directions.

So in my opinion your entire argument is based upon the definition of the word "space" and what space really is, as well as the definition and meaning of the word "nothing." Whether the universe is finite or not concerning space/ volume is based upon these definitions, I think, and requires that reality mirrors these accepted definition

Originally Posted by Ricewind

There cannot be in reality a place of non-existence

What do you base that on? It is an assumption that is not necessarily true. (It is not even clear what "a place of non-existence" means.) And I don't see how it is relevant to the universe anyway.

nothing can come from nothing.

How do you know that? And how is it relevant to the universe?

For nothing to exist nothing can exist and therefore how can the totality of existence be finite.

I have no idea what "for nothing to exist nothing can exist" means and so there is no apparent justification for "therefore".

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument and not at all spurious.

Only when applied to a logical argument. There is absolutely no reason why the universe should not be finite (and unbounded) and still be all there is and everything there is. (Or it might be infinite.)

Originally Posted by Ricewind

My belief that the universe is infinite is not based on a whimsical notion. The origin of my belief may have been intuition but since then has been galvanized by a thought process known as proof by contradiction... nothing can come from nothing.

This is annoying.
Seeing the same claim made time and time again by some person that didn't take a moment to simply think about what they are saying.

So, you claim that you've based a belief on the notion of "Proof by Contradiction."
Others claim they used logic and so on. In the end, it's all the same.

Every single one of you makes the same mistake.

You up and assume without putting any thought into it, that if the Universe had a beginning then that means that there was "nothing" before it.
It as absurd as people turning to religion to save their soul. They just up and accept the idea that a soul exists and that they have one without putting any thought into it. They just leap.

No, Ricewind, you did not use logic. You did not find some "Proof" by contradiction. You just didn't think it all the way through.
It is whimsical. That's what it is when you don't think it through and just leap.

Originally Posted by Strange

Only when applied to a logical argument. There is absolutely no reason why the universe should not be finite (and unbounded) and still be all there is and everything there is. (Or it might be infinite.)

I've read some of your recent posts and noticed that you never abandon the term "might", you always seem to imply it either directly or indirectly and I admire it. That's also one of the things I like about science, it always leaves the room for term "might" unless something is proven, consequently granting us the freedom to chose to believe in certain things which each one of us find convincing at individual level. I find Big Bang theory convincing up to a certain extent and if it did really occur then I am even more convinced that there has to be a cause for it to occur. If a day really arrives when the cause becomes known to us then Big Bang will not be a theory anymore and will become a known fact. That's how important knowing the cause is for us. For now, we do not know the cause and we also don't know if we'll ever know. I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it, especially because of the magnificence of the universe and the way it survives until it does. (Its certainly not the only reason for me to be a believer though).

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it

We must have differing definitions of "rational".

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Strange

Only when applied to a logical argument. There is absolutely no reason why the universe should not be finite (and unbounded) and still be all there is and everything there is. (Or it might be infinite.)

I've read some of your recent posts and noticed that you never abandon the term "might", you always seem to imply it either directly or indirectly and I admire it. That's also one of the things I like about science, it always leaves the room for term "might" unless something is proven, consequently granting us the freedom to chose to believe in certain things which each one of us find convincing at individual level. I find Big Bang theory convincing up to a certain extent and if it did really occur then I am even more convinced that there has to be a cause for it to occur. If a day really arrives when the cause becomes known to us then Big Bang will not be a theory anymore and will become a known fact. That's how important knowing the cause is for us. For now, we do not know the cause and we also don't know if we'll ever know. I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it, especially because of the magnificence of the universe and the way it survives until it does. (Its certainly not the only reason for me to be a believer though).

I agree with none of what you said.

Yet, there was something dignified in how you said it.

The difference between us is that I find it irrational to choose what you want to believe when the answer is unknown. To me, it is far more rational to simply accept that you do not know.
I find it irrational to think a divine creator God intelligently caused the Big Bang and then disappeared from the Universe within 10^-43 seconds of having done so.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we will never know. But to me, it is more sensible to say, "I do not know" than to say, "Godidit because I just want to believe that and you can't stop me so there."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I find it irrational to think a divine creator God intelligently caused the Big Bang and then disappeared from the Universe within 10^-43 seconds of having done so.

Argument from incredulity?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I find it irrational to think a divine creator God intelligently caused the Big Bang and then disappeared from the Universe within 10^-43 seconds of having done so.

Argument from incredulity?

Pretty much, yep. It's a skeptics first line of defense.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Strange

Only when applied to a logical argument. There is absolutely no reason why the universe should not be finite (and unbounded) and still be all there is and everything there is. (Or it might be infinite.)

I've read some of your recent posts and noticed that you never abandon the term "might", you always seem to imply it either directly or indirectly and I admire it. That's also one of the things I like about science, it always leaves the room for term "might" unless something is proven, consequently granting us the freedom to chose to believe in certain things which each one of us find convincing at individual level. I find Big Bang theory convincing up to a certain extent and if it did really occur then I am even more convinced that there has to be a cause for it to occur. If a day really arrives when the cause becomes known to us then Big Bang will not be a theory anymore and will become a known fact. That's how important knowing the cause is for us. For now, we do not know the cause and we also don't know if we'll ever know. I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it, especially because of the magnificence of the universe and the way it survives until it does. (Its certainly not the only reason for me to be a believer though).

I agree with none of what you said.

Yet, there was something dignified in how you said it.

The difference between us is that I find it irrational to choose what you want to believe when the answer is unknown. To me, it is far more rational to simply accept that you do not know.
I find it irrational to think a divine creator God intelligently caused the Big Bang and then disappeared from the Universe within 10^-43 seconds of having done so.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we will never know. But to me, it is more sensible to say, "I do not know" than to say, "Godidit because I just want to believe that and you can't stop me so there."

My religion teaches me that a person is fatally struck (not literally of course) if he stops saying "I do not know". So at least we have this is in common that we both do not hesitate in saying "I don't know". But then we split about belief in God. One of the reason for me to not to not-believe in God is provided in my above post, but then thats not the main reason. The main reason is my intuition, which according to me is not proper to discuss in science forum which I have also briefly explained in one of my earlier posts, acknowledging that I do not expect everyone else to believe it too.

(no intention of derailing the thread).

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

My religion teaches me...

Heh...

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

which according to me is not proper to discuss in science forum which I have also briefly explained in one of my earlier posts, acknowledging that I do not expect everyone else to believe it too.

(no intention of derailing the thread).

Yet, you named yourself, "Faithfulbeliever" and you were the one that brought up God in the first place. And not for the first time, either.
Now you say it is improper. I'm not buying it.
You believe it not because of any intuition or actual evidence and most certainly not because it is rational... But because of your religion- because you want to believe it and while you may not expect others to believe it, too... You want others to believe it, too.
That's why you brought it up. That's why you make it known you're a faithful believer.

You shoulda stuck with the dignified post.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

My religion teaches me...

Heh...

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

which according to me is not proper to discuss in science forum which I have also briefly explained in one of my earlier posts, acknowledging that I do not expect everyone else to believe it too.

(no intention of derailing the thread).

Yet, you named yourself, "Faithfulbeliever" and you were the one that brought up God in the first place. And not for the first time, either.
Now you say it is improper. I'm not buying it.
You believe it not because of any intuition or actual evidence and most certainly not because it is rational... But because of your religion- because you want to believe it and while you may not expect others to believe it, too... You want others to believe it, too.
That's why you brought it up. That's why you make it known you're a faithful believer.

You shoulda stuck with the dignified post.

You almost completely misunderstood my post. But the more I'll try to explain myself the more messy it will get. But you got one thing right, yes I would like others (who does not) to believe in God too, but that's of course is not an expectation nor was the reason for me to make any of my posts here. I just wanted contribute to this thread by posting my views, sorry if you did not like my view. But not sorry for believing what I believe. Peace!

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it

But what caused the intelligent entity?

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You almost completely misunderstood my post.

No, I didn't.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I just wanted contribute to this thread by posting my views, sorry if you did not like my view.

How interesting, considering I clicked "like" on that post.

Where you ran into trouble was in denying doing what you are doing and I suggest you examine your inner motives a bit deeper.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it

But what caused the intelligent entity?

If I try to answer this, again it will appear as if my intention of posting here was to impose my faith on others, because the answer I'll provide to this particular question can not be disassociated from my faith. I repeat, I only posted here because I like the topic "before the big bang" and I wanted to post my view and my belief. That's all!

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Ricewind

My belief that the universe is infinite is not based on a whimsical notion. The origin of my belief may have been intuition but since then has been galvanized by a thought process known as proof by contradiction... nothing can come from nothing.

This is annoying.
Seeing the same claim made time and time again by some person that didn't take a moment to simply think about what they are saying.

So, you claim that you've based a belief on the notion of "Proof by Contradiction."
Others claim they used logic and so on. In the end, it's all the same.

Every single one of you makes the same mistake.

You up and assume without putting any thought into it, that if the Universe had a beginning then that means that there was "nothing" before it.
It as absurd as people turning to religion to save their soul. They just up and accept the idea that a soul exists and that they have one without putting any thought into it. They just leap.

No, Ricewind, you did not use logic. You did not find some "Proof" by contradiction. You just didn't think it all the way through.
It is whimsical. That's what it is when you don't think it through and just leap.

Why do you draw the conclusion that I assume the universe to have had a beginning? The main point to my argument was that it must have always existed, and you accuse me of not thinking!

It would appear that neither of us are religious people so why bring it up in such a non-sequitur tirade.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You almost completely misunderstood my post.

No, I didn't.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I just wanted contribute to this thread by posting my views, sorry if you did not like my view.

How interesting, considering I clicked "like" on that post.

Okay, so I might have misunderstood a part of your post too. I mistakenly thought that you only hit like because you liked my "dignified way" of posting it but not the my view that I stated in it. I appreciate you acknowledging it though

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Okay, so I might have misunderstood a part of your post too. I mistakenly thought that you only hit like because you liked my "dignified way" of posting it but not the my view that I stated in it. I appreciate you acknowledging it though

I do not need to agree with what is said to like what is said. It seems odd, I know. But disagreement does not automatically lead to dislike.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Ricewind

My belief that the universe is infinite is not based on a whimsical notion. The origin of my belief may have been intuition but since then has been galvanized by a thought process known as proof by contradiction... nothing can come from nothing.

This is annoying.

You up and assume without putting any thought into it, that IF the Universe had a beginning then that means that there was "nothing" before it.
It as absurd as people turning to religion to save their soul. They just up and accept the idea that a soul exists and that they have one without putting any thought into it. They just leap.

Why do you draw the conclusion that I assume the universe to have had a beginning? The main point to my argument was that it must have always existed, and you accuse me of not thinking!

How did you manage to take what I said and turn it into the exact opposite of what I said? You clearly did not read what I said. You could not have.
I pointed out that your claim that the Universe had no beginning was a fallacy because you go on to assume that it had to have come from nothing for it to have a beginning- which is a notion you reject. The fallacy being that the assumption that it came from nothing is absurd and baseless. You have no clue what there was before the Big Bang. No one has any clue what there was. No one has any idea what the cause was. That's why I used the example of the soul- as people assume that it exists as an axiom and then jump to conclusions. Which is what you've done twice in a row, now.

Not only did you not think it through, but you did not read and comprehend my post and then thoughtlessly made an absurd response to it. You're batting heavy, today.

Why did I point it out?

Because it is annoying.

Do not assume you have any knowledge of Pre-BigBang physics.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I find it perfectly rational to believe that an intelligent entity caused it

But what caused the intelligent entity?

If I try to answer this, again it will appear as if my intention of posting here was to impose my faith on others, because the answer I'll provide to this particular question can not be disassociated from my faith. I repeat, I only posted here because I like the topic "before the big bang" and I wanted to post my view and my belief. That's all!

Well, the answer is the same in both cases.

Perhaps the Big-Bang was the creation of our universe, but it could have been "spawned" from a larger system - a natural consequence of the laws of physics in an eternal "uber" universe, if you like. From our point of view it might look like it came from nowhere when it in fact came from something larger - and that something doesn't necessarily need a beginning - it might always have been there...

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

.Perhaps the Big-Bang was the creation of our universe, but it could have been "spawned" from a larger system - a natural consequence of the laws of physics in an eternal "uber" universe, if you like. From our point of view it might look like it came from nowhere when it in fact came from something larger - and that something doesn't necessarily need a beginning - it might always have been there...

I highlighted the last statement of your post because that is something that many people find hard to agree to. If we consider time to be the emergent property of matter then we also have to consider that this "Something Larger" which is the cause of Big Bang may well be beyond our space-time, since the time (as we know of it) would not have emerged before the formation of matter. In this case it would not be so hard to agree to " It might always have been there" since the concept of time simply would not apply on this "Something larger" making it an eternal existent in eternal time.

Time becomes meaningless. The question always falls back to first cause.

There are hypotheses about the origins of our universe, but as of yet we have found no mechanism by which to test them. There is M-Theory, which posits that our universe was spawned from the clashing of hyper-dimensional "mem"branes, there is loop quantum gravity which tentatively predicts a previously collapsing universe, and so on. But, as always, it only pushes the question further back.

There are only two possible final solutions.

Something popped up out of nowhere, or it didn't.

If it didn't pop out of nowhere, then it has no beginning.

That's all there is. Everything else is just semantics.

And it can apply equally to any scenario or concept you can think of, if you think big enough. Always, there has to be a cause for there to be an effect at some level, even if it is something as abstract as "That's the way it is and we have no idea why" - i.e. The laws of physics. Why are the "way things work" the way they are? Where did they come from? Why does matter and energy and time and space act like it does? How come there are such things as matter and energy and time and space in the first place?

In the end, you either have to accept that something can come from nothing for no reason - the spontaneous generation of a first cause, or that there is always a cause - there is always a reason.

Either there is a cause of a cause, or there isn't.

But these things are outside of the scope of cosmology, so we cannot use astronomy to check for evidence of them.

In terms of cosmology, our best, most tested theory fails to make any more useful predictions when we take that theory and apply it too far back in the history of our observable universe. We find a Big-Bang. We have hypotheses, like the ones I mentioned above, but that is where the testable science becomes increasingly tenuous. Even the early history of our observable universe is still poorly understood.

If we try to apply logic to the situation:
A.) Either the whole shebang popped up with no explanation at all, or whatever caused it requires explanation. Rinse and repeat. Go to A.)

However you look at it, in the end, it just is. . . and this is where it is best to leave it to the philosophers.

Someone needs to do an interpretive dance of this whole prior to the big bang deal. Words and numbers confuse me terribly.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Time becomes meaningless. The question always falls back to first cause.

There are hypotheses about the origins of our universe, but as of yet we have found no mechanism by which to test them. There is M-Theory, which posits that our universe was spawned from the clashing of hyper-dimensional "mem"branes, there is loop quantum gravity which tentatively predicts a previously collapsing universe, and so on. But, as always, it only pushes the question further back.

There are only two possible final solutions.

Something popped up out of nowhere, or it didn't.

If it didn't pop out of nowhere, then it has no beginning.

That's all there is. Everything else is just semantics.

And it can apply equally to any scenario or concept you can think of, if you think big enough. Always, there has to be a cause for there to be an effect at some level, even if it is something as abstract as "That's the way it is and we have no idea why" - i.e. The laws of physics. Why are the "way things work" the way they are? Where did they come from? Why does matter and energy and time and space act like it does? How come there are such things as matter and energy and time and space in the first place?

In the end, you either have to accept that something can come from nothing for no reason - the spontaneous generation of a first cause, or that there is always a cause - there is always a reason.

Either there is a cause of a cause, or there isn't.

But these things are outside of the scope of cosmology, so we cannot use astronomy to check for evidence of them.

In terms of cosmology, our best, most tested theory fails to make any more useful predictions when we take that theory and apply it too far back in the history of our observable universe. We find a Big-Bang. We have hypotheses, like the ones I mentioned above, but that is where the testable science becomes increasingly tenuous. Even the early history of our observable universe is still poorly understood.

If we try to apply logic to the situation:
A.) Either the whole shebang popped up with no explanation at all, or whatever caused it requires explanation. Rinse and repeat. Go to A.)

However you look at it, in the end, it just is. . . and this is where it is best to leave it to the philosophers.

I would like to share a simple mathematical analogy here and live it to the reader to apply it and make sense of it in regards of the origination of universe or discard it by seeing no connection.

Let us take the number "2" and examine what causes it to exist. It is clear that 1+1=2, so its actually number "1" which is the actual cause of number "2" to exist, if there were no "1" there can be no "2".

Now let us examine number "1". What causes number "1" to exist? It can be said that number "1" is self caused because nothing exists before number "1". The other side of the coin is that "0" does exist before number "1". Although 0= nothing in math but it is a necessity for Number "1" to self manifest. By adding 1 to 0 we get "1". It goes from there and to reach from single digit to tens to hundreds to infinity it is always a "0" that causes a digits to change. For example there can be "11" only if there is "10" after the 9, again a need a "0" for causing a change.

Here we can see that Number "1" is the actual digit which is the root cause for all numbers to exists and without "1" there can be no possibility of other numbers to exist and it does not depend on any other number to exist and it manifests itself from nothing, but the nothing ("0") is very reason for the beginning of numbers and the cause of manifestation of "1" as first cause. ( "1" here would be the first cause which is manifested and "0" the first cause which is hidden).

Thanks all for the wonderful conversation!

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Let us take the number "2" and examine what causes it to exist. It is clear that 1+1=2, so its actually number "1" which is the actual cause of number "2" to exist, if there were no "1" there can be no "2".

That's a terrible argument. It's so poor, in fact, that I wonder how you can present it at all seriously.

One could just as well say that 0.5 is "the cause" of 2, since 1.5+0.5 is 2. And why select 0.5? 1.5 deserves equal billing. And there are infinitely many such constructions, so that there are an infinity of "causes" of 2 by extension of your reasoning, making the whole notion of "cause" essentially meaningless.

One might therefore more reasonably say that none of these is a "cause" of 2.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Let us take the number "2" and examine what causes it to exist. It is clear that 1+1=2, so its actually number "1" which is the actual cause of number "2" to exist, if there were no "1" there can be no "2".

That's a terrible argument. It's so poor, in fact, that I wonder how you can present it at all seriously.One could just as well say that 0.5 is "the cause" of 2, since 1.5+0.5 is 2. And why select 0.5? 1.5 deserves equal billing. And there are infinitely many such constructions, so that there are an infinity of "causes" of 2 by extension of your reasoning, making the whole notion of "cause" essentially meaningless.One might therefore more reasonably say that none of these is a "cause" of 2.

You can never take 1 out of the eqation completely. Even if it is 0.5*4=2 . There always wil be 1 there. Beause every number is either a fraction of 1 or a multiple of it! Nothing is free from 1.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You can never take 1 out of the eqation completely. Even if it is 0.5*4=2 . There always wil be 1 there. Beause every number is either a fraction of 1 or a multiple of it! Nothing is free from 1.

Arrant nonsense.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Here we can see that Number "1" is the actual digit which is the root cause for all numbers to exists and without "1" there can be no possibility of other numbers to exist and it does not depend on any other number to exist and it manifests itself from nothing, but the nothing ("0") is very reason for the beginning of numbers and the cause of manifestation of "1" as first cause. ( "1" here would be the first cause which is manifested and "0" the first cause which is hidden).

Close. But no cigar. Actually, not very close ...

First, mathematically, 0 does exist; it is not nothing. (It is defined in terms of the empty set, if you want to know). 1 and all of the other natural numbers can be defined in terms of 0 and the simple fact that every number has a successor (another number after it).

So 1 is not the "first cause" (meaningless phrase), its existence can be derived in the same way as all other numbers. The "first causes" are the existence of zero and some basic properties of counting numbers. But you could choose different axioms and come up with a different set of numbers with different properties. (Mathematicians like to do that sort of thing. And occasionally come up with something useful through it.) So there is no unique "first cause"; we just choose those that are most convenient.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Here we can see that Number "1" is the actual digit which is the root cause for all numbers to exists and without "1" there can be no possibility of other numbers to exist and it does not depend on any other number to exist and it manifests itself from nothing, but the nothing ("0") is very reason for the beginning of numbers and the cause of manifestation of "1" as first cause. ( "1" here would be the first cause which is manifested and "0" the first cause which is hidden).

Close. But no cigar. Actually, not very close ...

First, mathematically, 0 does exist; it is not nothing. (It is defined in terms of the empty set, if you want to know). 1 and all of the other natural numbers can be defined in terms of 0 and the simple fact that every number has a successor (another number after it).

So 1 is not the "first cause" (meaningless phrase), its existence can be derived in the same way as all other numbers. The "first causes" are the existence of zero and some basic properties of counting numbers. But you could choose different axioms and come up with a different set of numbers with different properties. (Mathematicians like to do that sort of thing. And occasionally come up with something useful through it.) So there is no unique "first cause"; we just choose those that are most convenient.

You said Zero and some basic properties of counting numbers are the "first cause", so you agreed with me partially. Thanks.

Zero is not nothing and I've acknowledged it using different method and also acknowledge it as a hidden first cause.

I've pointed that every number depends on 1 to exist either as a multiple of it or as fraction. There is 1 involve in every equation directly or indirectly for example 0.5 +1.5= 2 or 0.5*4=2, but 0.5, 1.5 and 4 are all either a fraction or a multiple of 1. Every number is a successor of another because 1 is been added to it. 3 is a successor of 2 because 1 is added to 2, or we can even say we derive 10 by adding 5+5 but in reality what we are doing is adding five 1's to another five 1's to get 10. Math collapses without 1. On the other hand we only add 1 itself to 0 to get 1. We can as well say that 1/2 +1/2=1, but 1/2 is actually a fraction of 1. We do not teach our kids 1/2 when we begin teach them numbers, we start from 1. If were to consider the fraction of 1 as numbers and begin with fractions to count numbers then we would never reach 1 because of infinite number of fractions there can be. I am not sure if i'm able to explain what I mean but I tried anyway.