If there was universe before big bang

[PruePhillip]

We are not even sure if space is bent in that manner. That could be a possibility. Or the universe could also be infinitely large. There is a lot that we do not know yet.

If the universe 'started' as a singularity and has expended for 13.4 billion whatever years then its diameter cannot be infinite, can it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the universe 'started' as a singularity and has expended for 13.4 billion whatever years then its diameter cannot be infinite, can it?

Actually the singularity does not have to be as small as they say. At a certain density relativity breaks down. From my understanding that is the point of the singularity, and it need not be an infinite density. A video by some people that understand physics better than I do:

Not too long. It does not dispute the Big Bang theory at all but explains how many of us misunderstand it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If the universe 'started' as a singularity and has expended for 13.4 billion whatever years then its diameter cannot be infinite, can it?

In Hawking and Penrose’s model, the singularity itself was a point of infinite density, therefore the universe emerged from an infinity.

If the universe had a beginning, and if it has boundaries and a diameter, it would be paradoxical to describe it as infinite within those parameters, but that does not preclude the possibility of a universe with infinite properties.

One problem with the whole concept of infinity - and as it stands that’s what infinity is, an abstract concept - is that by virtue of scale, it renders all measurable phenomena infinitely insignificant. It swallows everything up, in other words, like the infinitely dense centre of a super-massive black hole swallows everything which crosses the event horizon…

 

[PruePhillip]

In Hawking and Penrose’s model, the singularity itself was a point of infinite density, therefore the universe emerged from an infinity.

If the universe had a beginning, and if it has boundaries and a diameter, it would be paradoxical to describe it as infinite within those parameters, but that does not preclude the possibility of a universe with infinite properties.

One problem with the whole concept of infinity - and as it stands that’s what infinity is, an abstract concept - is that by virtue of scale, it renders all measurable phenomena infinitely insignificant. It swallows everything up, in other words, like the infinitely dense centre of a super-massive black hole swallows everything which crosses the event horizon…

Sure, and some of that is new to me, and interesting so thanks.
But I can't see the universe having an infinite diameter - only an 'infinite' edge like travelling
around the earth forever, looking for an end.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, and some of that is new to me, and interesting so thanks.
But I can't see the universe having an infinite diameter - only an 'infinite' edge like travelling
around the earth forever, looking for an end.

So the boundaries of the universe may be infinite in the sense that a circle is infinite, having neither beginning nor end - yet still have limitations.

It seems axiomatic to assume that anything which can be measured cannot therefore be infinite. If the diameter and circumference of a circle can be measured, a particular circle (as opposed to an abstract idealisation of a circle) cannot therefore be infinite. But it can have an infinite property, as you say.

This seems paradoxical to me, but I’m perfectly comfortable with unresolved paradox. And just thinking out loud really.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually the singularity does not have to be as small as they say. At a certain density relativity breaks down. From my understanding that is the point of the singularity, and it need not be an infinite density. A video by some people that understand physics better than I do:

Not too long. It does not dispute the Big Bang theory at all but explains how many of us misunderstand it.

Interesting video. It's not good to hold to 'opinions' about such things, 'cos you might be wrong, and in
any case, you won't learn 'cos you are holding an opinion....
Video doesn't mention the Big Crunch but it's my understanding that there won't be a crunch as the
universe will expand till it tears apart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting video. It's not good to hold to 'opinions' about such things, 'cos you might be wrong, and in
any case, you won't learn 'cos you are holding an opinion....
Video doesn't mention the Big Crunch but it's my understanding that there won't be a crunch as the
universe will expand till it tears apart.

I think that is still pretty much unsettled. It might get to the ripping apart stage. it might not. Which would be worse? Ripping apart or a cold pitiless heat death?

 

[ChristineM]

The universe is about 13.4 billion years old. It has been expanding since the Big Bang.
Should you traverse one direction I suppose you will come back the other - that kind of
infinity.

"Our" universe began around 13.7 million years ago. What was before and what is in parallel is unknown.

The universe is measured to be flat (infinite) to 5 decimal places. So it seems you wouldn't go around and return to the starting point. Of course it could deviate from flat at some point above the current accuracy of measurement... Who knows?


Oh, just a note, i think the BB is very poorly named, first it was very small,but became big after the initial event. And second, as far as is known there was no "substance" in which a "bang" even makes any sense.

 

[PruePhillip]

"Our" universe began around 13.7 million years ago. What was before and what is in parallel is unknown.

The universe is measured to be flat (infinite) to 5 decimal places. So it seems you wouldn't go around and return to the starting point. Of course it could deviate from flat at some point above the current accuracy of measurement... Who knows?


Oh, just a note, i think the BB is very poorly named, first it was very small,but became big after the initial event. And second, as far as is known there was no "substance" in which a "bang" even makes any sense.

I understand the term 'Big Bang' was meant to be perjorative by Hoyle.

 

[ChristineM]

I understand the term 'Big Bang' was meant to be perjorative by Hoyle.

Yes Hubble used the term as a derisive comment because he favoured the steady state theory.

 

[Kfox]

No it doesn't, what it means is yoy cannot comprehend any cosmological ideas beyond this universe

If the Universe is all that exist, by definition; there is nothing beyond the Universe. That reality has nothing to do with an inability to comprehend ideas.

 

[ChristineM]

If the Universe is all that exist, by definition; there is nothing beyond the Universe. That reality has nothing to do with an inability to comprehend ideas.

Like i said from my first post to you. The definition was coined BEFORE the hypothesis of multiverses was born.

It therefore MAY be incorrect... It simply is not known. You can of course say, no. Ir is correct, that is simply ban unevidenced claim. As is my claim that our universe may not be the only one.

You will be pleased to note that Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin (both renouned cosmologists) have calculated the possible number of universes that we could recognise as universes to he around 10^10^16 with more than twice that number that we could not recognise.

Of course that little snippet of information will no doubt hit stony ground but i really dont care, do with it as you will

 

[PruePhillip]

Like i said from my first post to you. The definition was coined BEFORE the hypothesis of multiverses was born.

It therefore MAY be incorrect... It simply is not known. You can of course say, no. Ir is correct, that is simply ban unevidenced claim. As is my claim that our universe may not be the only one.

You will be pleased to note that Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin (both renouned cosmologists) have calculated the possible number of universes that we could recognise as universes to he around 10^10^16 with more than twice that number that we could not recognise.

Of course that little snippet of information will no doubt hit stony ground but i really dont care, do with it as you will

The issue with these putative universes - how do you know? If you don't then it's like string theory - kind of religious.

 

[ChristineM]

The issue with these putative universes - how do you know? If you don't then it's like string theory - kind of religious.

No hypothesis is considered to be worthy of a second look unless there are valid observational or mathematical validations for the hypothesis. However, in the end they are nothing more than hypothetical ideas and no one considers them anything more until physical evidence is available.

For example, the hypothesis of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton. Takes 3 previously unexplained observations of our universe and from that builds the idea that our universe, at one time, collided with another thus indicating there is at least one other universe.

I have yet to see a religion that has such rigorous reasoning for it's existence.

 

[PruePhillip]

No hypothesis is considered to be worthy of a second look unless there are valid observational or mathematical validations for the hypothesis. However, in the end they are nothing more than hypothetical ideas and no one considers them anything more until physical evidence is available.

For example, the hypothesis of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton. Takes 3 previously unexplained observations of our universe and from that builds the idea that our universe, at one time, collided with another thus indicating there is at least one other universe.

I have yet to see a religion that has such rigorous reasoning for it's existence.

There's two accounts of the 'creation' in Genesis 1. The second more abstract and symbolic than the first.
But this first account gives a step by step of the sequence from beginning to human that impresses me.
But in the end - the bible is not about how the heavens go, it's about how to go to heaven.

 

[ChristineM]

There's two accounts of the 'creation' in Genesis 1. The second more abstract and symbolic than the first.
But this first account gives a step by step of the sequence from beginning to human that impresses me.
But in the end - the bible is not about how the heavens go, it's about how to go to heaven.

Im afraid the biblical account of creation leaves me unsatisfied. All it does is put a particular god in place of I don't know.

Talking of creation gods. Of around 4200 gods worshipped through history (excluding Hindu gods) 3800 of them were the one creator god. Not sure how that can work unless you close your eyes to the possibility that all are false but your own god.

 

[PruePhillip]

Im afraid the biblical account of creation leaves me unsatisfied. All it does is put a particular god in place of I don't know.

Talking of creation gods. Of around 4200 gods worshipped through history (excluding Hindu gods) 3800 of them were the one creator god. Not sure how that can work unless you close your eyes to the possibility that all are false but your own god.

Could very well be. It's like anything - because some or many are false, does that mean they ALL are false?
There's actually a logic fallacy there.
What compells me to believe in Christ as the Son of God is the sheer POWER of the Gospels. I refer you to
Matthew 5, 6 and 7. No man in history, no man in the world can say the things Jesus said here. This is what
people gave up their home and even their lives to go and preach (and I am not refering to the richly appareled
hypocrits who seek personal power and glory by using Christ's name.)

 

[ChristineM]

Could very well be. It's like anything - because some or many are false, does that mean they ALL are false?
There's actually a logic fallacy there.
What compells me to believe in Christ as the Son of God is the sheer POWER of the Gospels. I refer you to
Matthew 5, 6 and 7. No man in history, no man in the world can say the things Jesus said here. This is what
people gave up their home and even their lives to go and preach (and I am not refering to the richly appareled
hypocrits who seek personal power and glory by using Christ's name.)

Every religion believes the gods of other religions are false. So which,if any are not false? And like all other religions you believe your god to be the true god because of scripture???

All scripture in any religion has it's powerful passages, otherwise it could not attract a following. And most religion compels some to give up everything to proselytise for their belief


And as far as i know (i have read several bibles) Jesus has not given any first hand account of what he read. Every word claimed is second or third hand

 

[PruePhillip]

Every religion believes the gods of other religions are false. So which,if any are not false? And like all other religions you believe your god to be the true god because of scripture???

All scripture in any religion has it's powerful passages, otherwise it could not attract a following. And most religion compels some to give up everything to proselytise for their belief


And as far as i know (i have read several bibles) Jesus has not given any first hand account of what he read. Every word claimed is second or third hand

I was drawn to this one quote in a quotation book once
Matthew 11
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”


Of thousands of quotes in this book three or four stood out as being strange - impossible for any normal human to say.

And there's this power and certainty when Jesus says

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[ppp]

I was drawn to this one quote in a quotation book once
Matthew 11
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”


Of thousands of quotes in this book three or four stood out as being strange - impossible for any normal human to say.

And there's this power and certainty when Jesus says

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

There is nothing that you have quoted that is any way impossible for a human to say.