Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

A singularity is something that happens to the equations. Hardly any cosmologists think it is a real, physical thing. It's more an indication that the theory is no longer applicable and we need a combined theory of GR and QFT.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

Your misssing a key part of my statement. I said 'most likely,' and concerning the 'possibility' of a cyclic universe. There is also the 'possibility' of a multiverse.

You clearly have over stated my posts. Your source for the most part reflects my view, but your combative approach to dialogue is just static.

 

[We Never Know]

It's what GR by itself implies. However, we know that time isn't the unchanging Newtonian version, so a start of time is quite possible in other models. There are also hypotheses that have time going forward in both directions from the BB, so there still wouldn't really be a 'before' because if you try to track time backwards, you'd end up going forwards again.

You just need to let go of intuition and Newton.

I want to be clear here... are you saying it had a beginning?

If you want to write a two paragraph reply that's fine. As long as you answer this one question. "are you saying it had a beginning?"

 

[Polymath257]

What model makes you think there's a beginning?

The BB model.

 

[Polymath257]

"Nope. There was no point at which it didn't exist"

So it never began, never started right?

That is an ambiguous question. Specify precisely what you mean when you say something 'begins' or 'started'.

 

[Polymath257]

I want to be clear here... are you saying it had a beginning?

If you want to write a two paragraph reply that's fine. As long as you answer this one question. "are you saying it had a beginning?"

What, precisely, do you mean by 'had a beginning'? The answer to your question depends on what you mean by the question.

 

[We Never Know]

What, precisely, do you mean by 'had a beginning'? The answer to your question depends on what you mean by the question.

You already answered in post #3167

If you don't know what I mean, why.did you answer the BB model?

 

[Polymath257]

The BB model.

More precisely, to 'have a beginning' in this context simply means that time only goes finitely far into the past.

 

[Polymath257]

You already answered in post #3167

And I clarified in another post. Please be explicit about what you mean when you ask whether the universe 'had a beginning'. My answer used a very specific definition of that concept.

 

[We Never Know]

And I clarified in another post.

I asked...
"What model makes you think there's a beginning?"
You replied...
The BB model

If you didn't know what I meant, why did you answer with the BB model?

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is an ambiguous question. Specify precisely what you mean when you say something 'begins' or 'started'.

If something is, but once was not, it is reasonable to assume that thing had a beginning. If it always was, and always will be, we enter the realm of infinity and eternity. But since neither infinity nor eternity have ever been witnessed, except as abstract concepts, isn't it reasonable to assume that everything we observe in nature had a beginning?

 

[Polymath257]

Not sure why the above double post happened. Sorry.

Fixed. You can delete a post if you try soon enough. Otherwise, a moderator can do so.

 

[Polymath257]

If something is, but once was not, it is reasonable to assume that it had a beginning. If it always was, and always will be, we enter the realm of infinity and eternity. But since neither infinity nor eternity have ever been witnessed, except as abstract concepts, isn't it reasonable to assume that everything we observe in nature had a beginning?

there was never a point where it was not.

 

[Polymath257]

I asked...
"What model makes you think there's a beginning?"
You replied...
The BB model

If you didn't know what I meant, why did you answer with the BB model?

I clarified *my* meaning in another post. See post #3170

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t think so; not of necessity.

I think differently.

 

[viole]

If something is, but once was not, it is reasonable to assume that it had a beginning. If it always was, and always will be, we enter the realm of infinity and eternity. But since neither infinity nor eternity have ever been witnessed, except as abstract concepts, isn't it reasonable to assume that everything we observe in nature had a beginning?

Even if that was reasonable, that would not entail that the container of those things, the entire Universe, would have a beginning, too. If all balls in a container are red, that does not entail that the container is red. Same with beginnings.

ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

The BB model.

I kind of avoid using the terminology Big Bang, because it sounds like a 1950's D science fiction movie.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think differently.

That's obvious, but it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Polymath257]

I kind of avoid using the terminology Big Bang, because it sounds like a 1950's D science fiction movie.

It's standard terminology, even among scientists. Would you prefer LCDM?

 

[We Never Know]

More precisely, to 'have a beginning' in this context simply means that time only goes finitely far into the past.

Which is what you claim, believe, etc.

So...
It wasn't. (Referring to nonexistent time, space, the universe, etc)

Then it was. (referring to post big bang existence of time, space, the universe, etc.

It poofed. I rest my case.

 

[We Never Know]

I kind of avoid using the terminology Big Bang, because it sounds like a 1950's D science fiction movie.

I actually like the new Big Bang Theory show. Sheldon cracks me up lol