How would an astronomer show a universe prior to the big bang?

[jay gw]

This comes from the world's biggest telescope thread, looking backwards in time at light emitted billions of years ago.

What if there was no light emitted prior to year X? How does anyone know that light has always been emitted - there's no proof of that at all.

Light may only have been emitted in the last 10 billion years or whenever. No way to prove otherwise. Prior to the big bang it's possible that in all the universe there was not one single light or radiation emitting body.

Ok, so let's say there was no body emitting light - that would provide the evidence that the universe came into being at the big bang and nothing existed prior to that. Ok, so say that happens - how does an astronomer show that there was a universe or anything anywhere prior to the big bang if there are no light or radiation emitting bodies?

If you're the astronomer, describe what you would do to show that the universe did not entirely come into existence at the big bang but has always been.

If you can't, then describe how the big bang happened and what kind of matter behaved the way it did to create it.

The problem seems to be that if the big bang created all light emitting bodies everywhere in the universe, there is no way to date anything beyond that one event. Is that correct?

[GodMark2]

This comes from the world's biggest telescope thread, looking backwards in time at light emitted billions of years ago.

What if there was no light emitted prior to year X? How does anyone know that light has always been emitted - there's no proof of that at all.

One of the first tenets of science is that the rules are invariant. In other words, the forces that are at work making apples fall from trees are the same forces making planets orbit the sun. This also applies to everywhen as well as everywhere. This is a belief, but it is very well backed up through documentation and experiment.

Given that, we know that currently, any matter with a temperature above absolute 0 gives off radiation (the more inclusive term for light). Thus, if any matter existed with a temperature, it would give off radiation.

Light may only have been emitted in the last 10 billion years or whenever. No way to prove otherwise. Prior to the big bang it's possible that in all the universe there was not one single light or radiation emitting body.

Prior to the big bang, there was no universe. It's not that there was an empty space with no matter in it. There simply was no space, empty or otherwise. This is the most common misconception of what the 'big bang' is. There was no 'before the big bang' in this universe.

...there is no way to date anything beyond that one event. Is that correct?

That is correct. Nothing can be known before that point with our current methods and understandings.

[Schneibster]

Just a quick clarification, there's no way to date anything beyond that event because there weren't any DATES beyond that event. Time was created then.

[SpaceFluffer]

Right, the Big Bang model says that the universe started from a singularity of spacetime, and therefore space and time both came into being at that moment.

Just as a slight aside, one of the most important predictions of the Big Bang model is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). It's fairly easy to show that, if all the matter in the universe today was once contained in a small volume, that there had to be a point where the temperature dropped enough for the electromagnetic radiation (photons) to decouple from the matter, resulting in photons flying off in all directions with a characteristic energy. These photons should still be visible today and this model predicts they should have a fairly specific temperature.

When this CMB radiation was discovered in the 1960's (at a temperature of 2.73K) it was considered a great triumph of the Big Bang model. It has now been recorded to great precision by COBE and more recently by W-MAP telling us a great deal about the early universe.

It's kinda like having 'baby pictures' of the universe :)

[jay gw]

Right, the Big Bang model says that the universe started from a singularity of spacetime, and therefore space and time both came into being at that moment.
Space and time might have but matter did not come into being at that point.

Given that, we know that currently, any matter with a temperature above absolute 0 gives off radiation (the more inclusive term for light). Thus, if any matter existed with a temperature, it would give off radiation.
So can an astronomer find the matter that pre dates the big bang? If the earliest point at point zero of the big bang is 0 then when are they going to locate 0 - 1? It's like saying "negative time".

Secondly, how can space come into being when matter already existed? That's like saying matter exists without taking space. Nonsense. It's also nonsense (not to be rude) to say there was no time prior to the big bang. If there was no time then how did the reactions occur that created the bang in the first place?

A series of events occurred that led to the big bang. They happened over time. Or are you saying things just spontaneously arise? That's right out of a fairy tale.

I don't understand where the idea comes from that just because something happened a trillion years ago (a long time ago) that everything was fantastic and fundamentally different. It was not fundamentally different from what happens right now. Just because science can't answer with evidence "what happened prior to the big bang?" does not mean everyone should collectively pretend the answer is "nothing". How ridiculous. No wonder the average person is science skeptical.

[SpaceFluffer]

Space and time might have but matter did not come into being at that point.Yes, it did.

So can an astronomer find the matter that pre dates the big bang? If the earliest point at point zero of the big bang is 0 then when are they going to locate 0 - 1? It's like saying "negative time".You don't appear to be paying attention. If time came into being at the moment of the Big Bang, there was no 'before the Big Bang'.

Secondly, how can space come into being when matter already existed? That's like saying matter exists without taking space. Nonsense. It's also nonsense (not to be rude) to say there was no time prior to the big bang. If there was no time then how did the reactions occur that created the bang in the first place?You're not being rude, just ignorant. Apparently to you the possibility that you don't understand it is less probable than modern physics being 'nonsense'.

In short, we don't know what 'caused' the Big Bang, but our usual meaning of causality breaks down since there was no cause to precede effect since time started at the Big Bang. Modern physics has probed back to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but before that, we cannot comment on yet.

A series of events occurred that led to the big bang. They happened over time. Or are you saying things just spontaneously arise? That's right out of a fairy tale.Oh, really? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Again, you claim something that earlier posts have already stated is meaningless (there was no 'before the Big Bang'). We don't know how or why the universe was created. But we think we understand fairly well what happened to it 10^-43 seconds after it was created until now.

I don't understand where the idea comes from that just because something happened a trillion years ago (a long time ago) that everything was fantastic and fundamentally different.Nobody is claiming that. In fact, modern cosmology takes the laws of particle physics and gravity that we know today and applies them to the early universe, and very successfully, I might add. The only place where these laws break down is in the first 10^-43 s.

How ridiculous. No wonder the average person is science skeptical.No, with individuals like you around it doesn't surprise me in the least.

[jay gw]

In short, we don't know what 'caused' the Big Bang, but our usual meaning of causality breaks down since there was no cause to precede effect since time started at the Big Bang.
A ridiculous idea.

If time came into being at the moment of the Big Bang, there was no 'before the Big Bang'.
Time did not come into being at the big bang it existed prior to it, during and after.

We don't know how or why the universe was created.
Yes I know and that does not give scientists excuses to collectively pretend the answer is "there was nothing prior to the big bang," which is a lame excuse because it's so obviously wrong.

[Donks]

A ridiculous idea.


Time did not come into being at the big bang it existed prior to it, during and after.


Yes I know and that does not give scientists excuses to collectively pretend the answer is "there was nothing prior to the big bang," which is a lame excuse because it's so obviously wrong.
I'm sure you have the math and evidence to back up your assertions. Because to make such statements otherwise would be ridiculous.

[Bronze Dog]

Time did not come into being at the big bang it existed prior to it, during and after.
Evidence, please?

Yes I know and that does not give scientists excuses to collectively pretend the answer is "there was nothing prior to the big bang," which is a lame excuse because it's so obviously wrong.
Kind of like how heliocentrism was obviously wrong?

Obviousness isn't evidence.

[jay gw]

I'm sure you have the math and evidence to back up your assertions.

After you show the evidence for matter spontaneously arising I'll show you evidence that matter comes from other matter or from energy and has never come from anything else.

[Donks]

After you show the evidence for matter spontaneously arising I'll show you evidence that matter comes from other matter or from energy and has never come from anything else.
Feel free to start off by pointing out where anyone supports that strawman you got there.
Edit: Some papers for you to read over:
The Cosmic Microwave Background & Inflation, Then & Now (http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0210007)
An Introduction to quantum cosmology (http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101003)
Big bang nucleosynthesis: Probing the first 20 minutes (http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0307244)

[SpaceFluffer]

In short, we don't know what 'caused' the Big Bang, but our usual meaning of causality breaks down since there was no cause to precede effect since time started at the Big Bang.
A ridiculous idea.Oooh, good comeback. And a highly scientific one too. You sure showed me.

[HeyLeroy]

:tr:

[jay gw]

Edit: Some papers for you to read over:
Nothing in those papers says the universe arose spontaneously, they say it evolved from existing matter. If matter existed there was time and space prior to the big bang.

[Donks]

Nothing in those papers says the universe arose spontaneously
That's because that's your very own strawman.
If matter existed there was time and space prior to the big bang.
And that's your very own assertion you have to prove.

[jay gw]

It's fairly easy to show that, if all the matter in the universe today was once contained in a small volume, that there had to be a point where the temperature dropped enough for the electromagnetic radiation (photons) to decouple from the matter, resulting in photons flying off in all directions with a characteristic energy.

That's funny because the papers Donks posted say it's pretty much accepted that the temperature of the early universe was hot, not cold.

[PatKelley]

That's funny because the papers Donks posted say it's pretty much accepted that the temperature of the early universe was hot, not cold.
Surface of last scattering. The decoupling is the first point at which photons can do more than rattle around i.e. become observable radiation.

[Donks]

That's funny because the papers Donks posted say it's pretty much accepted that the temperature of the early universe was hot, not cold.
Does your quote say "cold" at any point? Cause I read "temperature dropped enough." I'll give you a little example you might understand. The condensation point of water is 100 °C at sea level. Say that you have steam at 105°C, and then you cool it to 95 °C. Could you say that the "temperature dropped enough" for the water to condensate, or would you have to say "it got cold"?

[jay gw]

Surface of last scattering. The decoupling is the first point at which photons can do more than rattle around i.e. become observable radiation.
So photons existed prior to the big bang? Wait a minute didn't several posters here just say that nothing existed prior to the big bang?

Oh here it is:

ME:

Space and time might have but matter did not come into being at that point.

SPACEFLUFFER:

Yes, it did.

[PatKelley]

So photons existed prior to the big bang? Wait a minute didn't several posters here just say that nothing existed prior to the big bang?

Oh here it is:

ME:

Space and time might have but matter did not come into being at that point.

SPACEFLUFFER:

Yes, it did.
No.

Surface of last scattering occurs after the big bang. It is the point at which the energy and matter achieved a low enough density that photons had a range of travel that did not immediately intersect other matter. "Surface of Last Scattering" is not "Big Bang" in English; I'm not certain of your native language but I'd be willing to find a translation engine if you could tell me, so that we won't confuse terms anymore.

[PatKelley]

After you show the evidence for matter spontaneously arising I'll show you evidence that matter comes from other matter or from energy and has never come from anything else.
Um, matter can spontaneously arise given energy; else there would be no transition (E=mc2). Energy can arise given empty space, according to quantum physics. All one needs is a transient particle and enough expansion of space; the inflationary period is a demonstration of energy from vaccuum, as is Hawking's evaporation of black holes.

[jay gw]

matter can spontaneously arise given energy; else there would be no transition (E=mc2). Energy can arise given empty space, according to quantum physics.

Two things then - why would someone say there was nothing prior to the big bang when energy is not nothing it's something, and why does anyone believe time starts with the existence of matter not the existence of energy? That's the same as saying time depends solely on matter and if there's none there's no time.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Time did not come into being at the big bang it existed prior to it, during and after.

How could time exist without distance/space?

Do you even believe that the universe is expanding?

LLH

[LordoftheLeftHand]

That's the same as saying time depends solely on matter and if there's none there's no time.

You’re starting to get it! That is exactly what we are saying.

LLH

[PatKelley]

Two things then - why would someone say there was nothing prior to the big bang when energy is not nothing it's something, and why does anyone believe time starts with the existence of matter not the existence of energy? That's the same as saying time depends solely on matter and if there's none there's no time.
The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space and time, not matter. The Big Bang would be the event at which all time and space were at one point (dimensionless, essentially). Existance prior to the decoupling of space/time/matter/energy is not really definable in the terms of the universe of space/time/matter/energy. All of this was in one place, infinitely dense and with no dimension. How does it really exist outside of itself? There is no "there" or "then" to describe, so how could one say there is "there" or "then" before this point? There might have been; we have no evidence, but we are unlikely to find out anything as everything in this universe is derived from this point.

[jay gw]

How could time exist without distance/space?
First it's not known whether there was space because the knowledge only goes to point zero at the big bang so far. Also, why does time require matter? Why can't it exist with the existence of energy?

The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space and time, not matter.
So matter, time, space and energy are all independent of each other? Didn't a poster already say that you can't have time without matter?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

So matter, time, space and energy are all independent of each other? Didn't a poster already say that you can't have time without matter?

I see you retracted your statement that time can be measured without matter by editing your post.

Time is a function of space (distance) and matter.

It takes me 20 minutes to get to work. The time it takes me to get to work is a based on the distance (space) between my work and my home (and how fast I’m willing to drive!).

If the location of my work was the same location as my home (if I worked at home) it would basically take me no time to get to work.

If there was only one location in the universe then it would take no time to do anything and time would lose any meaning. Time would be an alien concept and would not be applicable (and be very difficult to visualize). We were born into a world that contains matter and space and find it very difficult to visualize anything different.

LLH

[jay gw]

Time is a function of space (distance) and matter.

You're missing something about the statements made about the beginning of the universe and prior to that - time can be measured in another way that doesn't require matter.

If energy existed prior to the big bang, which it did because that's where the matter came from, then the changes it underwent in the evolution to the bang can be measured. If something cools down or gets hotter, the change is measured in time. I don't understand where the idea you need matter to measure time comes from because you don't need any matter.

[Iamme]

How could time exist without distance/space?

Do you even believe that the universe is expanding?

LLH

If energy is in motion, you would have time. Time is dictated by motion.

And if energy is not in motion, then what is energy, but a loose word?

Jay does not care about the time period that occured after the Big Bang and if the universe is expanding. He wants the issue adressed to energy and before the Big Bang.

I have been smiling reading this thread, because Jay is being raked over the coals here, like I have been on just about every thread I start. Poor Jay. And now I'm throwing myself into the mix.

So, you expect him to prove to YOU that matter couldn't have spontaneously been created based on Einstein's principles, eh?

Why is it that all of you guys so buy into the claim that the universe spontaneously occured? You buy into the 10 to the -43 power, but do not question what gave rise to that time period? And yet ask someone else to prove something to YOU?

Don't you guys yourselves question and wanted demonstrated and proved where the energy and matter came from, before taking spontaneity as gospel?

Isn't the burden of proof to lay on the claimant puting forth the most incredible claim? Is it more incredible to believe, contrary to any documented proof that something had to have always existed, based on the lack of evidence as to how energy and matter just got here at some singularity? Isn't the incredible claim that something spontaneously occured with no known acting forces?

Isn't the claim that humans spontaneously combust incredible and don't you require of THEM that THEY are the ones making the incredible claim, and to prove it?

This is a hoot.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

This is a hoot.

Just about everything you write is a hoot.

Certainly makes me laugh anyway.

[sparks]

Iamme/jay gw: If you know what happened before the BB, show us please.

Edited for excessive sarcasm by me right now. (13.5 billion years ago).....Oh damnit, stop that!

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Jay GW and Iamme. Both of you say you can measure time without matter. Please give us an example. We are all sitting on the edge of our seat, waiting for you to give us then next breakthrough in physics! Please hurry.

LLH

[jay gw]

Both of you say you can measure time without matter. Please give us an example.
The example has already been provided:

that there had to be a point where the temperature dropped enough for the electromagnetic radiation (photons) to decouple from the matter, resulting in photons flying off in all directions with a characteristic energy.

Point where temperature dropped to decoupling P
P - 1

What's the problem with understanding it? Energy changes from one state to another whether it be temperature or any other changes. If it's not measured in time from change 1 to 2 to n then what is it measured by? It seems very obvious.

[wollery]

You're missing something about the statements made about the beginning of the universe and prior to that - time can be measured in another way that doesn't require matter.

If energy existed prior to the big bang, which it did because that's where the matter came from, then the changes it underwent in the evolution to the bang can be measured. If something cools down or gets hotter, the change is measured in time. I don't understand where the idea you need matter to measure time comes from because you don't need any matter.:rolleyes:
In order for something to cool down or heat up it must, by definition, have a temperature. Now, since temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of matter that make up a substance, it follows that in order for there to be heating up or cooling down there must be matter present.

[jay gw]

it follows that in order for there to be heating up or cooling down there must be matter present.
So you jumped in without reading the posts from people that said the big bang created matter and prior to that there was none. :rolleyes:

[LordoftheLeftHand]

grrr double post deleted

[wollery]

So you jumped in without reading the posts from people that said the big bang created matter and prior to that there was none. :rolleyes:No. I read every post in this thread.

Sadly, you appear to have completely failed to understand what was being said to you in those posts. :nope:

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Both of you say you can measure time without matter. Please give us an example.

The example has already been provided:



It has?!? Please do me a favor and give us a detailed example of how to measure time without matter. For that matter I'm interested in how you could measure ANYTHING without matter.

Now is your chance to prove all of us stuck up skeptics wrong!!! Don't blow it.

LLH

[SpaceFluffer]

Oh man, this thread has become a freaking train wreck. Part of the problem is that jay is completely failing to pay attention, but we are also, I think, having trouble because we are using different definitions for time. Or at least, we are thinking about time differently.

First, to review: modern physics holds that the universe was created from a singularity of spacetime, which contained all of the matter and energy currently in the universe. It expanded, and as it did so the matter within it cooled. Since the laws of particle physics are different at high energies/temperatures, the early universe was a very different place than the universe today. However, the cooling was sufficient that after 10-15 minutes, light elements could form. The expansion continued, and at ~300,000 years the photons decoupled from the matter, leaving microwave radiation propagating throughout the universe in all directions (CMB). The expansion continues to the present day, by which time matter has clumped together under gravity, forming galaxies, stars and planets.

Now, the fact that the universe was once in a very small, dense, hot phase about 14 billion years ago is unavoidable given the evidence. And by evidence, I mean, in part
1) the predicted and recorded Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum,
2) the measured and predicted light element abundances that were created in the very early universe (nucleosynthesis)
3) the size and expansion rate of the universe given many, many experiments measuring the recession velocity and distance to thousands and thousands of galaxies, using varied techniques and analyses.

Do you agree, jay, that the universe was in a hot, dense, very small phase about 14 billion years ago?

You're correct that we cannot, as yet, say anything about what happened before that time, but general relativity tells us that this hot, dense state must have been preceded by a singularity. So, unless GR breaks down in the early universe, the Big Bang as we know it did occur. And right now, it's unclear why GR would break down under these conditions.

If you would like to suggest alternate explanations as to why GR breaks down in the early universe, how it does so, and what then happened before the hot, dense phase of the universe, please feel free to do so. Show your work.

[bob_kark]

If you would like to suggest alternate explanations as to why GR breaks down in the early universe, how it does so, and what then happened before the hot, dense phase of the universe, please feel free to do so. Show your work.

Do we get extra credit for finding the Unified Field Theory?

[Luke T.]

jay, time is the fourth dimension. When the first dimension did not exist, neither did the second, or third, or fourth.

There is nothing outside the universe, either.

No one knows exactly how the singularity that created the Big Bang came into being.

There are so many books I could recommend you read. For instance, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

You can read his book online here, (http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/A_Brief_History_in_Time.html) if you like.

:book:

[Freakshow]

A ridiculous idea.


Time did not come into being at the big bang it existed prior to it, during and after.From http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
(The line spaces and quotation marks are to indicate that there are other parts of the speech between these statements, that I did not copy here.)

"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end."

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier."

"As we look out at the universe, we are looking back in time, because light had to leave distant objects a long time ago, to reach us at the present time. This means that the events we observe lie on what is called our past light cone. The point of the cone is at our position, at the present time. As one goes back in time on the diagram, the light cone spreads out to greater distances, and its area increases. However, if there is sufficient matter on our past light cone, it will bend the rays of light towards each other. This will mean that, as one goes back into the past, the area of our past light cone will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease. It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning. "

"The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct."
You can read the rest yourself at the page.

Hmmmm...who sould I believe...jay gw, or Stephen Hawking? jay gw, or Stephen Hawking... Hmmm...that's a tough choice...

[jay gw]

The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before.

But didn't some of the posters here say that there was a singularity that cooled eventually causing the big bang? Why is that independent of one another? That's a chain of events according to the posters here but independent according to Stephen Hawking. The people here are saying that the existence of a singularity is part of the big bang but Hawking says that it's not related at all. Which one is correct?

Also, he's saying that the effect of the universe has no cause. Obviously that's a nonsensical idea.

Third, is there any particular reason why in billions of years there have been no new universes created? That's sort of odd a single inexplicable event happening like that when other, maybe even all, astronomical phenomena happen with some regularity. That's a rhetorical question though, mostly to do with the philosophy.

[Donks]

But didn't some of the posters here say that there was a singularity that cooled eventually causing the big bang? Why is that independent of one another? That's a chain of events according to the posters here but independent according to Stephen Hawking. The people here are saying that the existence of a singularity is part of the big bang but Hawking says that it's not related at all. Which one is correct?
You are obviously still not paying attention. The timeline goes like this: you have a singularity, which cannot be described by the laws of physics as we know them. The big bang occurs, space and time start expanding. You have all the energy and mass in the universe in a very small region, and it is extremely hot. As it expands, it cools down, allowing photons to escape, and atoms to form.
Also, he's saying that the effect of the universe has no cause. Obviously that's a nonsensical idea.
Present your work in the area that proves him wrong. Your opinion on what is obvious or not regarding cosmology is about as worthless as mine.
Third, is there any particular reason why in billions of years there have been no new universes created? That's sort of odd a single inexplicable event happening like that when other, maybe even all, astronomical phenomena happen with some regularity. That's a rhetorical question though, mostly to do with the philosophy.
Why should there be more universes appearing here? Are the conditions the same, anywhere?

[SpaceFluffer]

Jay, please read my last post for further clarification. I also asked you a question - I'd be interested to read your response.

[Soapy Sam]

Daft question 134 in a series of 11,273...4...5...

Time is created at To.
But clearly, not very much of it.

Now at some point, inflation sets in. Does this only apply to space, or to spacetime?
ie does time "inflate" as well?
If so, does this mean that ...What the heck does "time inflation"mean- acceleration? Deceleration? So is the universe actually older than we think, or younger?

If time is NOT subject to inflation, which I hope is so, because my headache is bad enough already, then Where the heck is all the time coming from? Because there seems to be a lot more (past) time around now than there used to be.("Aye! Them was the Good Old Picoseconds...")

[reginactam]

I was thinking about what you all had written and was trying to remember where I had read an article about :The Myth of the Beginning of Time . So I went through my SCIAM mags and then looked it up on line.

Since they are saying that there is two Universes that they can now explain with mathmatical certainty there is:

So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.

Here is the link for all of your reading pleasure:

sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000&sc=I100322

(had to break up the URL for the lack of 15 posts)

[chipmunk stew]

Third, is there any particular reason why...there have been no new universes created?One hypothesis says that others have come into existence. But given that we're subject to the laws of this one, how would we know?

[jay gw]

One hypothesis says that others have come into existence. But given that we're subject to the laws of this one, how would we know?

If there is something that violates all laws of physics what would science make of that? Perhaps it entered from another universe?

So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.

Aha, now this is sounding like the truth of it all. Time was never created it always was and there were things in existence prior to the big bang. That's what they'll find after science has methods or instruments to see things they can't today.

[Freakshow]

If there is something that violates all laws of physics what would science make of that? Perhaps it entered from another universe?A singularity. There's one in every black hole.

Aha, now this is sounding like the truth of it all. Time was never created it always was and there were things in existence prior to the big bang. That's what they'll find after science has methods or instruments to see things they can't today.They actually don't know. Which is why it is called "theoretical physics", not "physics". :) Its a matter of using imagination to figure things out, and then to use mathematics to test it. Have to use math to test it, because these are things that can't be empirically tested. Sometimes that changes, as it did with what Relativity says about time. Once atomic clocks were invented, we could test what Einstein said about the passage of time as speed changes. And the guy was dead-on right. Wow...

Stephen Hawking once had a hypothesis that if the universe were to stop expanding and start contacting, that time would reverse. After much work, it was discovered that the math just didn't work. So he admitted he got that one wrong, and started working on it from other angles. That's what's so great about science. :)

One thing that has been considered as a possibility is that the universe has been in a cycle of expansion and contraction. The universe exists between a "big bang" and a "big crunch". Its interesting.

Keep in mind that when dealing with these matters, what serves common sense isn't always right. Would it have ever occurred to you that time slows and mass increases as one moves faster? It would have never occurred to me. It doesn't make sense at all. Nothing in my "common sense" would tell me that is the case. But it is. The math works. And the test results support it.

Would it serve your common-sense to think that the book sitting on your desk has enough atomic energy in it to level a city? The only thing special about the "radioactive" elements is that their nucleai are so big that they are unstable. But there is nothing special about the nuclear forces that hold the nucleas of an atom of uranium together, compared to an atom of anything else...calcium, for example. The Strong Nuclear Force is the Strong Nuclear Force. Its the same force in all atoms. The radioactive elements we think of making weapons out of are simply so big that they are unstable.

So...your book could level a city and poison hundreds of thousands of people. Cool, huh?

Oh...and...matter is mostly empty space. In fact, it is almost entirely empty space. Very little of an atom is made up of matter. So what keeps solid objects from passing through each other? Electomagnetic repulsion. Does that fit "common sense"? Solid matter is mostly empty space?

I would really caution against using common sense when thinking about theoretical physics. :)

(I'm not a physicist. I'm a computer and network security expert. So I don't guarantee everything I said here to be any more accurate than you would expect it to be from someone who just enjoys reading about the subject.)

[SpaceFluffer]

Don't worry Freakshow, if you were a physicist it wouldn't make any difference. Jay wouldn't pay attention to your comments and would conveniently forget to answer your questions.

[SpaceFluffer]

So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.
Aha, now this is sounding like the truth of it all. Time was never created it always was and there were things in existence prior to the big bang. That's what they'll find after science has methods or instruments to see things they can't today.Wow, it sure doesn't take much to convince you of what you already want to hear, does it? That article refers to two potentially testable theories. i.e. there's no evidence to support their conclusions.

[chipmunk stew]

..why does anyone believe time starts with the existence of matter not the existence of energy?It was said elsewhere that matter can arise from energy. From nuclear power and nuclear weaponry, we know that the reverse is also true. Saying that time starts with matter, then, is essentially equivalent to saying that it starts with energy, since matter can be expressed in terms of energy. (By the way, I'm not saying it's true that time starts with matter--I don't know enough to give an informed opinion--but showing that time was present with energy before matter arose is not a refutation of the concept.)

It's also been said elsewhere that astronomers have observed evidence that backs up the predictions of the Big Bang as far back as some miniscule fraction of a second after the Bang occurred, but no observed evidence has been collected yet at T=0. So whether energy and time existed "before" the Bang, or came into existence at the Bang, is a question that so far can only be asked in speculative, or at best hypothetical, terms.

One thing is pretty certain, though. You have to discard your common sense understanding of time-descriptive words like "before" when you're pondering crossing a threshold like the birth of a universe.

Freakshow gave a few great examples why. From our perspective, things just get plain weird when we move away from the phenomena that are directly observable through our five senses.

[jay gw]

but showing that time was present with energy before matter arose is not a refutation of the concept.)
Some posters have said that time requires the presence of matter and there was no time or matter prior to the big bang. Why are you saying it's not known while they're saying they know exactly what happened?

Wow, it sure doesn't take much to convince you of what you already want to hear, does it? That article refers to two potentially testable theories. i.e. there's no evidence to support their conclusions.

What evidence do you have to make the statement that time was created at the big bang and did not exist prior to it?

[SpaceFluffer]

I don't see why I should answer your question, when I've asked you one twice and you haven't dignified me with an answer.

Besides that, I've been about as clear as I can on what modern physics does, and does not, say about the Big Bang.

[chipmunk stew]

Some posters have said that time requires the presence of matter and there was no time or matter prior to the big bang.Yes, some posters are more certain than others. Just because a lot of people disagree with you, doesn't mean they're all on the same page with each other.

You used (as an argument against the idea that time requires matter) an example where time and energy existed, but not matter. I was simply pointing out that energy and matter are interchangeable, so your example did not refute the idea.

I also said:
I'm not saying it's true that time starts with matter--I don't know enough to give an informed opinion

Why are you saying it's not known while they're saying they know exactly what happened?I'm saying it's not known because it's not known. There are many hypotheses, some of which appear to be more viable than others, and some people have a great deal of certainty about one or another. But the truth is, as yet NO ONE KNOWS.

But this still holds true:
One thing is pretty certain, though. You have to discard your common sense understanding of time-descriptive words like "before" when you're pondering crossing a threshold like the birth of a universe.

[jay gw]

Do you agree, jay, that the universe was in a hot, dense, very small phase about 14 billion years ago?
That's what some of the evidence shows.

One thing is pretty certain, though. You have to discard your common sense understanding of time-descriptive words like "before" when you're pondering crossing a threshold like the birth of a universe.
No you don't because time flows in the same direction generally and the universe evolved from the big bang which evolved from X which evolved from X - 1 and X - 2 and so on. There's no reason to think that prior to the big bang there was nothing but emptiness or void and suddenly something appeared out of nothing.

[chipmunk stew]

No you don't because time flows in the same direction generally and the universe evolved from the big bang which evolved from X which evolved from X - 1 and X - 2 and so on. There's no reason to think that prior to the big bang there was nothing but emptiness or void and suddenly something appeared out of nothing.I'm glad you're so certain.

Sweet Ed, this is boring.

[bob_kark]

That's what some of the evidence shows.

No you don't because time flows in the same direction generally and the universe evolved from the big bang which evolved from X which evolved from X - 1 and X - 2 and so on. There's no reason to think that prior to the big bang there was nothing but emptiness or void and suddenly something appeared out of nothing.

I really don't understand what the point of this thread is any longer. You began the thread by asking some questions that I would assume you were attempting to have answered. But, every time someone answers your question with facts and well researched theories, you respond by challenging them because they don't give you the answers you want to hear.

Even after being provided links to documents that explain and confirm the information they're giving you, you continue to attack their explanation with no evidence or factual proof of any kind to support the claims you're making. Now, instead of continuing to debate theories based upon facts and extensive research with logic that is flawed due to your lack of understanding in the subject, maybe you should do some reasearch and learn about what it is you're debating in the first place. If you have questions about it, simply start another topic and ask the board. They're smart people and for the most part, are happy to help.

[jay gw]

I really don't understand what the point of this thread is any longer.
The point is that the people here are making very definite statements about there being nothing, no matter/energy/space or time prior to the big bang and I'm asking for evidence for that. The reason it's going around in circles is because they keep saying the same thing but the evidence they bring up doesn't really say that.

The original question is "HOW would an astronomer show there was anything prior to the big bang?" HOW HOW HOW - nobody has ever said a thing about it. IF you're an astronomer and IF you're trying to show something HOW would you do it. Everybody just ignores that and started saying "There wasn't anything the question is moot."

I left out the bias on my part against ANYTHING that looks like a god created the universe. Sorry folks but if you leave the big bang theory where you're leaving it there's no reason for anybody ever to think a god didn't snap fingers and create it. Maybe you didn't realize it but the bibles of the world say gods spontaneously created the world.

Let's summarize your ideas shall we:

* The present universe was created by a mysterious event that is only known an instant after but nothing is known prior to it.
* There was nothing prior to the event known as the big bang that resulted in the present universe even Stephen Hawking who should know, says they are completely independent.
* Matter, energy, space and time spontaneously "were created" AT THE SAME INSTANT BY A PROCESS THAT DEFIES HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
* There is no record in history of an event like it ever happening again and there is not a single piece of evidence that matter or energy create themselves today meaning THE EVENT DEFIES ANY HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, LOGIC OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. If matter and energy have propensities to create themselves spontaneously then why isn't that observed in the vastness of the universe? Please name the last 10 material bodies and energies that spontaneously created themselves in chronological order. Please list not only the date and month but the hour and location of spontaneously created matter and energy.
* All the bibles of every religion said 10 thousand years ago when they were written that THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS AN EVENT THAT WOULD DEFY HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

RELIGION 1
SCIENCE 0

Agnostic: "Pope Benedict I don't believe in the supernatural because science can explain the natural world."
Pope Benedict: "Oh, science can explain many things. But you know what? IT CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN HOW IT GOT HERE SO WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT."

Do you understand what you're really saying because you sure don't seem to.

But, it's your theory to do with what you want.

[Freakshow]

The original question is "HOW would an astronomer show there was anything prior to the big bang?"An astonomer wouldn't. A theoretical physicist would. Read my post again.

I'm not saying I KNOW the answer, one way or the other. But you seem convinced that you KNOW the answer. On what are you basing it?

[SpaceFluffer]

Cosmologists build theories based on evidence, Jay, not what does or does not disturb them. I'm sorry if our current understanding troubles you in regards to it's religious implications, but we can't start claiming things for which there is no evidence.

I, for one, don't claim that there was a singularity that created the universe, just that our current understanding and evidence points strongly to that being the case. We may turn out to be wrong, we may turn out to be right, but the evidence will lead us there. It may defy human understanding right now, but 100 years ago we didn't know how the Sun worked. Who knows what the future will bring?

One thing's for sure, I'm not interested in any further 'discussion' in this thread since you clearly have an agenda which has little to do with the truth.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

* All the bibles of every religion said 10 thousand years ago when they were written that THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS AN EVENT THAT WOULD DEFY HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.




Ummmm... you don't see any problem with this statement? :confused:

[Freakshow]

Ummmm... you don't see any problem with this statement? :confused:No. All of those bibles were written 10,000 years ago, and then the FSM transported them into their respective future timelines. It's all good. :D

[Freakshow]

Cosmologists build theories based on evidence, Jay, not what does or does not disturb them. I'm sorry if our current understanding troubles you in regards to it's religious implications, but we can't start claiming things for which there is no evidence.

I, for one, don't claim that there was a singularity that created the universe, just that our current understanding and evidence points strongly to that being the case. We may turn out to be wrong, we may turn out to be right, but the evidence will lead us there. It may defy human understanding right now, but 100 years ago we didn't know how the Sun worked. Who knows what the future will bring?

One thing's for sure, I'm not interested in any further 'discussion' in this thread since you clearly have an agenda which has little to do with the truth.Well stated. If I wasn't busy watching the Hatton/Maussa fight right now, I'd go look up the name of the logical falacy jay is committing. I think it is something like "argument from incredulity". It just means that when you can't find a logical explanation for something, you just attribute it to whatever supernatural explanation you prefer.

[jay gw]

I notice that everyone chose to ignore the points about what the big bang theory leads to and avoided my last post.

It just means that when you can't find a logical explanation for something, you just attribute it to whatever supernatural explanation you prefer.
I just said I don't believe in supernatural explanations. It's in my post several times. The big bang theory is leading directly to the idea that will be taught until decades from now when new information may or may not come in, what will be taught is that the creation stories in bibles are true. Everything from science says the beginning of the universe is an inexplicable- beyond- human- comprehension mystery.

What makes it even worse is that the people subscribing to the theory will not allow for anything existing prior to the big bang event as if to say they know all.

[chipmunk stew]

The big bang theory is leading directly to the idea that will be taught until decades from now when new information may or may not come in, what will be taught is that the creation stories in bibles are true.:jaw-dropp Wha-!?!

Everything from science says the beginning of the universe is an inexplicable- beyond- human- comprehension mystery.Strawman A. Knows nothing.

What makes it even worse is that the people subscribing to the theory will not allow for anything existing prior to the big bang event as if to say they know all.Strawman B. Knows everything.

If you're going to argue against a strawman, the least you could do is pick one and be consistent.

When you argue this way, how can one help but "choose to ignore points"? Your "points" are self-contradicting and are aimed at ideas that were not put forth by the people you're arguing with! It's ridiculous.

[chipmunk stew]

Agnostic: "Pope Benedict I don't believe in the supernatural because science can explain the natural world."
Pope Benedict: "Oh, science can explain many things. But you know what? IT CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN HOW IT GOT HERE SO WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT."
Science isn't trying to convert anyone. If religious people want to use the fact that science can't explain everything as a recruitment tool, there's nothing scientists can do about it except to remind people that science is in the business of working towards explanations, and everything "known" by science has some degree of uncertainty. Those who have a problem with that may choose religious faith. So be it.

Those who have religious faith always have an advantage in confidence over those who hold out for scientific explanations because by their natures, religious explanations are complete and certain, while scientific ones are filled with gaps and tentative. For some people, that's cause enough to distrust much of what science brings to the table. For others, that's science's greatest strength.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Those who have religious faith always have an advantage in confidence over those who hold out for scientific explanations because by their natures, religious explanations are complete and certain, while scientific ones are filled with gaps and tentative. For some people, that's cause enough to distrust much of what science brings to the table. For others, that's science's greatest strength.

Arrr.. I like the cut o' yer jib me lad ...

[c4ts]

Be patient with Jay. He's a troll who crawled out of R&P a while ago, and you're better of waiting for him to return to his cave. Occasionally he'll wander into the Politics forum, but he's strayed a little too far this time.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Jay GW: Are you going to tell us how to measure time (or anything else) without matter? I suppose I should have my head examined for expecting you to back up one of your statements.



LLH

[PatKelley]

I notice that everyone chose to ignore the points about what the big bang theory leads to and avoided my last post.


I just said I don't believe in supernatural explanations. It's in my post several times. The big bang theory is leading directly to the idea that will be taught until decades from now when new information may or may not come in, what will be taught is that the creation stories in bibles are true. Everything from science says the beginning of the universe is an inexplicable- beyond- human- comprehension mystery.

Nope. Throw enough mud at a wall and something will stick... ever think that "right" isn't so important as "accurate?" It took far from seven days.

What makes it even worse is that the people subscribing to the theory will not allow for anything existing prior to the big bang event as if to say they know all.
It's not the scientists that won't allow it...