Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

There can be no BB start if there is no existence from which to start, totally impossible.

Why not? If time is finite into the past, there would be a start and no before that start.

 

[Polymath257]

Doesn't matter what you think, it is not possible for existence to arise from no-existence.

So it is good the BB theory doesn't say that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As described previously the 'nothing; as described by Hawking based on his description of the origin of our universe is not no-existence.

Not necessarily omnipresent. In fact it is more likely that the Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a hypothetical part of of the nature of our universe, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are descriptive concepts of observed properties of our universe.

Again, check my previous posts that address what is the 'nothing' referred to by Hawking. It is not no-existence.

The following reference may help you understand Quantum time on the Quantum scale of our physical existence. Note: the bold gives some insight that explains that time on the quantum scale is not the continuous time/space of our universe.

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?​

www.exactlywhatistime.com


Quantum Time

Max Planck is sometimes considered the father of quantum theory In the first half of the 20th Century, a whole new theory of physics was developed, which has superseded everything we know about classical physics, and even the Theory of Relativity, which is still a classical model at heart. Quantum theory or quantum mechanicsis now recognized as the most correct and accurate model of the universe, particularly at sub-atomic scales, although for large objects classical Newtonian and relativistic physics work adequately.
If the concepts and predictions of relativity (see the section on Relativistic Time) are often considered difficult and counter-intuitive, many of the basic tenets and implications of quantum mechanics may appear absolutely bizarre and inconceivable, but they have been repeatedly proven to be true, and it is now one of the most rigorously tested physical models of all time. Time at the Quantum scale only is a way to measure the time of discrete Quantum events, and is not continuous.

Quanta​

One of the implications of quantum mechanics is that certain aspects and properties of the universe are quantized, i.e. they are composed of discrete, indivisible packets or quanta. For instance, the electrons orbiting an atom are found in specific fixed orbits and do not slide nearer or further from the nucleus as their energy levels change, but jump from one discrete quantum state to another. Even light, which we know to be a type of electromagnetic radiation which moves in waves, is also composed of quanta or particles of light called photons, so that light has aspects of both waves AND particles, and sometimes it behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaved like a particle (wave-particle duality).

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). Tests have been carried out using sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 10−15 seconds) and at that level time certainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities."

The Hawking nothing that is not no-existence, is what exactly?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No Dark Matter and Dark energy are ONLY indirect hypothetical properties of our universe. Hawking does not mention Dark Matter and Dark Energy as properties of the proposed Quantum existence called 'nothing before the existence of our universe.

Please define QV. Np problem with Higgs, which represent a part of the Quantum existence at the smallest scale.

It would be very difficult for you to provide a reference to support your insistence that Dark Energy and Dark Matter as omnipresent, or even objectively exists.,

Reference please . . .

I never mentioned Dark Matter, you did, Dark Energy I understood to be omnipresent.

For example...

Dark Energy – Philosophy of Psysics Philosophy of Physics
If dark energy is the culprit, then what is this elusive, though omnipresent entity?

Our Expanding Universe: Delving into Dark Energy
The leading theory is that dark energy is the "cosmological constant," a concept Albert Einstein created in 1917 to balance his equations to describe a universe in equilibrium. Without this cosmological constant to offset gravity, a finite universe would collapse into itself. Today, scientists think the constant may represent the energy of the vacuum of space. Instead of being "empty," this would mean space is actually exerting pressure on cosmic objects. If this idea is correct, the distribution of dark energy should be the same everywhere.

Our Expanding Universe: Delving into Dark Energy
DARK energy is everywhere – and when we say everywhere, we mean everywhere. It suffuses every corner of the cosmos, absolutely dominating everything in it.



QV is the Quantum Vacuu,m Quantum Vacuum: Negative Energy & Repulsive Gravity

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You missed the point. You are using your own version of the word "nothing". You won't even define it. Others are using different definitions. No one that does claim "the universe came from nothing" is talking about an absolute nothing. For example in the his book "A Universe From Nothing" Krauss is using a definition of "No mass and no energy". The universe appearing from that sort of nothing does not go against any of the laws of physics. It only goes against your poor understanding of the laws of physics. I do not think that he even claims that the universe had to come from no mass and no energy.

There is the concept of a relative nothing and the concept of absolute nothing. I am saying the latter does not and can not exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You keep saying that, but it only shows you don't comprehend the theory.

You keep saying that. See if my next two posts help you to see my position.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why not? If time is finite into the past, there would be a start and no before that start.

You speak of the concept of time as though it is an entity that exists independently, it does not, it is a concept related to the continuation of existence. Therefore the reality of no time could only be true if there was no existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So it is good the BB theory doesn't say that.

It is implied by saying there is no "before" because time has not started. If there is no time, it logically means there is no existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying that matter and energy have existed whenever there was time. In that sense, both have always existed. I also allow that time is finite into the past.

Naturally there is a before. Such as "before my time," or "before George Washington existed." I hope you don't think it is possible to literally go back in time. (what might be called "time travel.") That is what an episode of "Twilight Zone" could be constructed around.

 

[Polymath257]

You speak of the concept of time as though it is an entity that exists independently, it does not, it is a concept related to the continuation of existence. Therefore the reality of no time could only be true if there was no existence.

That is where I disagree with you. Time, like space, is part of the geometry of the universe. We experience it as a continuation, but only because we don't remember the future because of entropy effects.

 

[Polymath257]

It is implied by saying there is no "before" because time has not started. If there is no time, it logically means there is no existence.

It means there is no before. That does not mean a state of non-existence exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is the concept of a relative nothing and the concept of absolute nothing. I am saying the latter does not and can not exist.

No one has claimed that using the Big Bang Theory. You are merely have a very very hard time understanding that time may have had a start. That would make phrases like "Before the Big Bang" meaningless and self contradicting.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not the way it work, YoursTrue.

Every galaxies and stars, including our star system, with Earth, including life on earth, only exist in this universe.

That's where all the evidence lies.

There are no evidence that any can exist outside of the universe, not even space and time. And we have only technology to observe the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE.

Anything existing "outside of the universe" is pure conjectures, and most likely something you can never test & verify, and therefore can never "know".

Anyone can make up all sort if claims, and lot of these claims cannot be verified, and "knowing" & "knowledge", requires evidence.

Believing isn't the same as knowing. Knowing requires verification, believing don't.

If you believe in concept that there are something beyond this universe, that "existence" can exist "outside of the universe", then by all mean, show evidence to support your claim/belief, because the burden of proof would be upon you.

My implication is based on the fact that the Bible says the universe cannot hold the Almighty God. Therefore I conclude that God is greater/beyond the universe itself. Solomon said, "The house that I am building will be great, for our God is greater than all the other gods. 6 And who is up to the task of building him a house? For the heavens and the heaven of the heavens cannot contain him, so who am I that I should build him a house except as a place for making sacrifices smoke before him? " 2 Chronicles 2
Therefore the universe cannot contain God the Almiighty.

 

[gnostic]

OK, gnostic, insofar as I have read and discern, there is no evidence to support the idea that matter was always there. It's like saying you or I have always been there. In other words, since we weren't there, we really don't know. About the universe. But I go by the statement that says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) That, along with the fact that no scientist can say what was 'there' at the beginning, leads me to believe that neither you nor I nor any scientist can say with certainty if matter was always there. That's how I see it now. Thank you for your considerate attitude.

YoursTrue.

I know that you believe in the Genesis creation and the Bible and all. I certainly used to believe in.

But verse 1:1 is merely a brief description of God creating the heavens and earth, that description isn't an explanation.

It explain nothing. It does explain what the Earth is made of or how it form, nor do heavens sufficiently explain anything about our Solar System. Heavens or sky are vague description, which the Genesis describe as the firmament, which dome or vault. And inside the dome, not only God created Sun, moon and stars, but it is also the same dome that God created the birds to fly within.

How can stars and birds be in the same dome? It is not logical, and it is certainly not science.

What the whole Genesis (1 & 2) described and narrated, isn't sciences.

It only mentioned fishes or marine life, birds, land animals and humans, only in a very general descriptions, that even Iron Age illiterate farmers and shepherds and fishermen would know. There are no detailed explanations of any of the animals biology - for instances, anatomy and physiology.

Saying birds or fowls having wings and can fly, is kindergarten level. It never describe how the wings were built, or how the birds are capable of flight. There are no details whatsoever. Just basic description that even today a 4-year old child would know. That's the level of education Genesis authors have. Which isn't much at all.

Whoever wrote Genesis creation, clearly have no real understanding of the Earth and astronomy, no real knowledge of plant biology or of animal biology.

As I am sure, you have read from me before, the "God did it" isn't an explanation and certainly isn't in evidence.

It is unsubstantiated claim, as are "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It isn't even original, as the Egyptians and Babylonians (and the Sumerians before the Babylonians) have written similar creation myths, centuries and millennia (eg Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age) before the (Iron Age) Genesis authors.

And btw.

And heavens, sky or firmament, had nothing to do with the Universe, in the way we know the Universe now.

We had only learned about the Universe being larger than the Milky Way a hundred years ago, in 1919, with Edwin Hubble's discovery using the Hooker Telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory, California. It was his discoveries that led astrophysicists during the 1920s (Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaitre), to proposed the expanding universe hypothesis (before it was called the Big Bang in 1949).

That you would claim that "heavens" mean "Universe", is simply a false claim, as such claim is definitely anachronistic.

The ancient people have no knowledge of the Universe.

 

[gnostic]

My implication is based on the fact that the Bible says the universe cannot hold the Almighty God. Therefore I conclude that God is greater/beyond the universe itself. Solomon said, "The house that I am building will be great, for our God is greater than all the other gods. 6 And who is up to the task of building him a house? For the heavens and the heaven of the heavens cannot contain him, so who am I that I should build him a house except as a place for making sacrifices smoke before him? " 2 Chronicles 2
Therefore the universe cannot contain God the Almiighty.

You do realize that Solomon never spoke such words, as he most likely never existed. Plus the Chronicles were written either in the late 6th century or early 5th century BCE, so centuries after Solomon that IF he existed.

There was no evidence of any empire by Solomon, and certainly nothing to indicate the fable wealth of his kingdom. Historically and archaeologically, the only known Hebrew kingdom, was that of Israel and Judah. There are no evidence that Saul, David and Solomon existing.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue.

I know that you believe in the Genesis creation and the Bible and all. I certainly used to believe in.

But verse 1:1 is merely a brief description of God creating the heavens and earth, that description isn't an explanation.

It explain nothing. It does explain what the Earth is made of or how it form, nor do heavens sufficiently explain anything about our Solar System. Heavens or sky are vague description, which the Genesis describe as the firmament, which dome or vault. And inside the dome, not only God created Sun, moon and stars, but it is also the same dome that God created the birds to fly within.

How can stars and birds be in the same dome? It is not logical, and it is certainly not science.

What the whole Genesis (1 & 2) described and narrated, isn't sciences.

It only mentioned fishes or marine life, birds, land animals and humans, only in a very general descriptions, that even Iron Age illiterate farmers and shepherds and fishermen would know. There are no detailed explanations of any of the animals biology - for instances, anatomy and physiology.

Saying birds or fowls having wings and can fly, is kindergarten level. It never describe how the wings were built, or how the birds are capable of flight. There are no details whatsoever. Just basic description that even today a 4-year old child would know. That's the level of education Genesis authors have. Which isn't much at all.

Whoever wrote Genesis creation, clearly have no real understanding of the Earth and astronomy, no real knowledge of plant biology or of animal biology.

As I am sure, you have read from me before, the "God did it" isn't an explanation and certainly isn't in evidence.

It is unsubstantiated claim, as are "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It isn't even original, as the Egyptians and Babylonians (and the Sumerians before the Babylonians) have written similar creation myths, centuries and millennia (eg Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age) before the (Iron Age) Genesis authors.

And btw.

And heavens, sky or firmament, had nothing to do with the Universe, in the way we know the Universe now.

We had only learned about the Universe being larger than the Milky Way a hundred years ago, in 1919, with Edwin Hubble's discovery using the Hooker Telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory, California. It was his discoveries that led astrophysicists during the 1920s (Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaitre), to proposed the expanding universe hypothesis (before it was called the Big Bang in 1949).

That you would claim that "heavens" mean "Universe", is simply a false claim, as such claim is definitely anachronistic.

The ancient people have no knowledge of the Universe.

Thank you. Of course, while I can't answer every point you bring up, I will say that it seems reasonable to understand that it took time to prepare the earth for habitation, including allowing light to shine through. Did it have to? I don't know, I guess God could have done it in an instant rather than a long time in reference to letting the light through, etc. but that is not my question or concern. Yes, the Bible does not explain in detail how as you say -- God did these necessary things for life to come about in its varied forms on the earth, but it seems logically presented to me. Regardless of reference to heaven or firmament, still the term "heavens" does not have to be limited, my understanding is that it is what is 'out there' beyond the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that Solomon never spoke such words, as he most likely never existed. Plus the Chronicles were written either in the late 6th century or early 5th century BCE, so centuries after Solomon that IF he existed.

There was no evidence of any empire by Solomon, and certainly nothing to indicate the fable wealth of his kingdom. Historically and archaeologically, the only known Hebrew kingdom, was that of Israel and Judah. There are no evidence that Saul, David and Solomon existing.

What I do realize is that it is possible that there were other writings that were eventually compiled in a piece eventually called a book as we know it (2 Chronicles), and yes, I do believe Solomon's words were relayed meaning recorded.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is where I disagree with you. Time, like space, is part of the geometry of the universe. We experience it as a continuation, but only because we don't remember the future because of entropy effects.

I agree with the concept of time and space being part of the geometry of the universe, so therefore if there is no time, there is no space. Agreed?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It means there is no before. That does not mean a state of non-existence exists.

And no before means there is no time and space, no time and space means there is no existence, yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No one has claimed that using the Big Bang Theory. You are merely have a very very hard time understanding that time may have had a start. That would make phrases like "Before the Big Bang" meaningless and self contradicting.

No before means there is no time and space, yes?