Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is T=0? I am claiming that there is not such a thing. So, what is your point?

Ciao

- viole

Sorry, so you didn't reference the theory of BB, right?

 

[shunyadragon]

Hawking has changed his belief, he now believes that time existed before the BB, the link is somewhere back in the thread.

IF you believe he referred to continuous time/space that existed before the expansion of the universe please reference the post or the citation again.

The time Hawking is referring to I already mentioned it was Quantum time.

We understand Quantum time through Quantum Mechanics.

 

[shunyadragon]

There had to be a process involving time for the BB expansion, this is arising.

The process involving time before the expansion of the universe is described as Quantum Time as described in Quantum Mechanics. Yes, continuous time/space began with the beginning of the expansion of our universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was very specific in what I said.

Whenever the universe existed, so did space, time, matter, and energy.

Once again, there was no 'before', so the answer to your first question is NO.

The second question is ambiguous: do you mean 'matter, energy, and the universe existed for all time'? If so, then the answer is yes.

Do you mean 'matter, energy, and the universe existed for an infinite amount fo time'? If so, the answer is no in BB cosmology, but we don't know in the real universe (it depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct).

I mean that nobody on earth can know with a capital K what was there at first. Ok have a good one...

 

[YoursTrue]

I was very specific in what I said.

Whenever the universe existed, so did space, time, matter, and energy.

Once again, there was no 'before', so the answer to your first question is NO.

The second question is ambiguous: do you mean 'matter, energy, and the universe existed for all time'? If so, then the answer is yes.

Do you mean 'matter, energy, and the universe existed for an infinite amount fo time'? If so, the answer is no in BB cosmology, but we don't know in the real universe (it depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct).

What do you mean there is no before? You think the universe or matter always existed?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no before the universe "existed".

Everything that exist now, can only exist in the universe. That's also true in the first fraction of second of the Universe (eg the Planck Epoch).

There are no "before the universe", and no "outside of the universe".

You are sure of this because...?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. No 'from'. The word 'from' implies a previous time. And that is not the case.

If we consider distances from some center point, there is a distance of 0, but no smaller distance. That 0 doesn't 'come from' a negative radius.

Nope, it is time to speak out and call a spade a spade, the BB model, regardless of the dogma wrt no "before", is an impossible event, it is trying to justify getting existence from non-existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. That is your basic mistake. To arise means a process involving time. A start simply means a time for which there is no previous existence.

Existence from non-existence is impossible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No 'become'. Simply 'is'.

Existence from non-existence is impossible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, the *consensus* is that general relativity alone (so the basic BB model) will start to fail when the energy levels get to the realm of quantum gravity. There is no consensus about what happens before that point. This would be about 10^(-33) seconds into the expansion and before.

But *in the BB model*, there is a start to time at the BB. That is what the math says.

We *know* it will fail at some point. But, of the different models we have of quantum gravity, some allow for an infinite previous time (usually in the context of a multiverse) and some do not. We do not know which, if any, are correct. So the question of whether time started is not resolved in the real universe/multiverse.

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

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yet another 'science in crisis' claim from the faithful. Usually, it's evolutionary theory that they tell us is in crisis. It's typical to frame it as a conspiracy among clannish scientists to exclude dissenting opinion, but here you are with your dissenting opinion anyway, which appears to have had no impact on anybody. And still you see yourself as possessing some kind of insight that will rewrite science. Science's "days are numbered" beginning with the day you get somebody to take your challenge seriously, right?

No conspiracy, but smarts, it is impossible to get a BB start to existence from no-existence. Using dogma like no "before" does not fool anyone with God given awareness to recognize deceit.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really? Prove it. Prove that there was before a big bang. Prove that time always existed. Or in your own words "shut up".

There was never a start to existence, it is utterly impossible. The no "before" is BB dogma.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And why do you say that? Especially when the experts in the field say otherwise?



On the contrary, it has been challenged many times. It has just survived those challenges by agreeing with observations.



Yes, for the expansion. No for the start.



Sorry, but it is not a case of 'true believers' like in a religion. it is simply that the BB cosmology (more specifically the LCDM model) fits the actual observations better than all alternatives. And that is the whole game in science.

You have admitted to not really understanding the theory. You clearly don't understand the math that supports the theory. You have not addressed the actual observations that show your favorite alternative is wrong.

All you have is your philosophical dislike of finite time. And that means precisely nothing.

The reality is that, regardless of the conceptual dogma and math that says it is possible to get, for want of plain and honest language, something from nothing, ir is impossible. The BB theory is an impossible scenario, end of story.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The process involving time before the expansion of the universe is described as Quantum Time as described in Quantum Mechanics. Yes, continuous time/space began with the beginning of the expansion of our universe.

There was no beginning of time, there is no something from nothing, not now, not ever. It is utterly impossible. God has given humans a mind to discern truth from untruth, it is time to use it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

IF you believe he referred to continuous time/space that existed before the expansion of the universe please reference the post or the citation again.

The time Hawking is referring to I already mentioned it was Quantum time.

We understand Quantum time through Quantum Mechanics.

According to TechTimes, Hawking says during the show that before the Big Bang, time was bent — "It was always reaching closer to nothing but didn't become nothing," according to the article. Essentially, "there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's point of perspective."
Stephen Hawking Says He Knows What Happened Before the Big Bang

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was never a start to existence, it is utterly impossible. The no "before" is BB dogma.

Just stating an opinion is not a refutation. You need to support your claim.

 

[Jimmy]

How bout the big boy theory? Is Jesus the big boy?

 

[gnostic]

I understand and see it as wordplay, the truth is that no time before the BB time began means there was no spacetime, and time begins with the BB. It is deceitful to say this is not true. No spacetime means no existence.

Well, I understand that you have been twisting Polymath257’s reply.

As to the Big Bang theory, there are scopes or limits that scientists set models to investigate, research & test. And through the decades, it have been verified with observations & data, more than any other theoretical models, including the popular Multiverse.

Steady-state models (the 1920s’ original (by William Duncan MacMillan) & the better known 1948 model, by Hoyle, Bondi & Gold) have been the main rival for decades until 1964’s discovery of CMBR. So the Steady-State have been debunked for around 60 years...which would be next year.

So, the only eternal for the “eternal universe”, would be the oscillating universe model (or cyclical model) and the Multiverse.

If you don’t know what the oscillating or cyclical universe model is, it is the universe has gone through series of expansion & contraction, hence a series of rebirth after total collapse...or to put it simply - Bang, Crunch, bang, Crunch, etc.

The problems with both the Oscillating Universe model & the Multiverse model are actually the same problems - there are simply no way to test either of them.

If you seriously, believe that the eternal universe is true, then by all mean, prove it. Demonstrate that there are evidence or show the data, that can verify your concept of the eternal universe.

I know you can’t, because no scientists and no technology are capable of observing the evidence for eternal universe.

The eternal universe, remained theoretical and so far, untestable and speculative.

Do you know where Multiverse is “doing well”? In the science fiction sectors, eg sci-fi novels, comics, tv series & films.

But in the real world, Multiverse only exist on papers, with some complex equations.

Until you can present any of the eternal universe cosmologies evidence, they are more in the realms of untestable theoretical models or unrealistic philosophies.

 

[gnostic]

You are sure of this because...?

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.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just stating an opinion is not a refutation. You need to support your claim.

I don't care what you believe, there was no creation from nothing, it is just common God given sense.