The Universe Always Was Existing

[idav]

While it isn't incorrect to say that, since you cannot measure time from something timeless, I am curious on whether or not you believe in the expansion of the universe, if so, how does it not contradict?

The big bang shows when the universe started expanding. What it can't show us is where the stuff that started expanding came from and we don't know how long the stuff would have been there before the big bang occurred.

 

[shawn001]

The cosmologists that I have read are not certain the universe will continually expand even though the rate of expansion is still increasing. Some feel it's possible to have a Big Crunch, as it's called, whereas the universe might eventually slow down and begin to contract.

Technically, it is not assumed by cosmologists that the universe began with the BB since most do believe there was likely something prior to it, and mathematical models point in the direction of our universe being smaller than a present-day atom before expansion. Also, we need to remember that we may well be part of a multiverse.

The rate of expansion is accelerating faster then light. Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch and cuurent observations are pointing to a "Big Freeze."


Technically, it is not assumed by cosmologists that the universe began with the BB.

Cosmologiest have a "picture" of it called the CMB. The afterglow of the BB.


"mathematical models point in the direction of our universe being smaller than a present-day atom before expansion."

This is the singularity believed to have triggered the Bang. However, the BB theory only really states the universe was hotter and denser in the distant past, not what started it. An analogy might be like evolution, we know evolution happened, but not how abiogenesis might have happened exactly.

We know the bang happened but not how it happened.

There are many good theories on multiverses, and they are looking for evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I tend to think the composition of the universe remains eternal via the dynamics involved in forming it, yet the universe as we know it now is very likely finite in that it will eventually bear no resemblance in a distant future of what we recognise as the universe now.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The singularity,

edited to fix spelling.

How can it exist without time or space? It takes up space, so it implies space.

Time is the unfolding of events, it requires change to exist. Without time, nothing moves; not electrons, protons, neutrons... nothing moves. Movement and changing is a constant property of the universe. I like to simplify explaining this movement as the "Vibration of Life"

 

[Slapstick]

How can it exist without time or space? It takes up space, so it implies space.

Time is the unfolding of events, it requires change to exist. Without time, nothing moves; not electrons, protons, neutrons... nothing moves. Movement and changing is a constant property of the universe. I like to simplify explaining this movement as the "Vibration of Life"

Time as we know it, only existed or exists after the big bang. If someone were say “I do not know what came before the big bang,” that doesn’t mean time did not exist. It might have existed in another form than what is known or how it is observed.

 

[Pegg]

wow, just wow!

 

[oldbadger]

The big bang shows when the universe started expanding. What it can't show us is where the stuff that started expanding came from and we don't know how long the stuff would have been there before the big bang occurred.

.....of course, similar questions will continue for as long as humans exist.

Suppose that we discovered the answer to 'what was before the big-bang?'.
Suppose, for instance, that today, now, we discovered that the cosmos was a continuing series of expansions, contractions and meg-black holes, with trillions of universes within..... ? (...or whatever)

The next science thread could read, 'What came before the cosmos?', or 'What lies beyond the cosmos?'

And so, the more closely that we try to draw near to the 'Reason for our Existence', so the more remotely will that Reason retreat. Some call it Science, others call it 'God'. Never to be identified?

 

[idav]

wow, just wow!

So long as people still need to just chalk it up to "god did it" then science hasnt answered the question of the beginning.

 

[metis]

Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch and cuurent observations are pointing to a "Big Freeze."

Technically, it is not assumed by cosmologists that the universe began with the BB.

Cosmologiest have a "picture" of it called the CMB. The afterglow of the BB.


"mathematical models point in the direction of our universe being smaller than a present-day atom before expansion."

This is the singularity believed to have triggered the Bang. However, the BB theory only really states the universe was hotter and denser in the distant past, not what started it. An analogy might be like evolution, we know evolution happened, but not how abiogenesis might have happened exactly.

We know the bang happened but not how it happened.

There are many good theories on multiverses, and they are looking for evidence.

Actually the "Big Crunch" has not been ruled out because there's no way of knowing that the acceleration will continue, according to the cosmologists that I have read. But the rest of the above appears to be correct-- at least as far as we can tell at this point.

 

[shawn001]

Actually the "Big Crunch" has not been ruled out because there's no way of knowing that the acceleration will continue, according to the cosmologists that I have read. But the rest of the above appears to be correct-- at least as far as we can tell at this point.

There is quite a bit of evidence since the mid 90's against a big crunch, however no problem we won't rule it out completely, but right now its the least likely scenario.

 

[Slapstick]

wow, just wow!

Its Valentines day. Is that a response to muah, yours truly?

 

[Pegg]

The big bang shows when the universe started expanding. What it can't show us is where the stuff that started expanding came from and we don't know how long the stuff would have been there before the big bang occurred.

this is off topic, but i was wondering if cosmologists had any idea, or way to determine, where the big bang originated from. I thought that would be interesting to know the projection point of where the light came from.

 

[Pegg]

So long as people still need to just chalk it up to "god did it" then science hasnt answered the question of the beginning.

it just surprised me that some still believe the universe is eternal.

Yet Im sure those same people balk at those who believe the earth is flat. mind boggling on both accounts. '

 

[oldbadger]

The rate of expansion is accelerating faster then light. Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch and cuurent observations are pointing to a "Big Freeze."

If the Big Crunch is ruled out, then how can obs only 'point' to a Big Crunch? Neither has been thrown in the bin.

You wrote this:-

Technically, it is not assumed by cosmologists that the universe began with the BB.

.....and later in the same post you wrote this:-

We know the bang happened but not how it happened.

There are many good theories on multiverses, and they are looking for evidence.

Yes

 

[Sees]

it just surprised me that some still believe the universe is eternal.

Yet Im sure those same people balk at those who believe the earth is flat. mind boggling on both accounts. '

You are surprised because you don't like the idea...your mind is made up regardless of what current theories say or what the ones 10, 15, 25 years from now will say.

There are several theories with an eternal universe which don't have small or major problems or issues. You want to pretend they are poor or non-existant so the only thing left standing is a scripture friendly theory or model.

Is this not true?

Plenty of intelligent or even brilliant people believe an eternal universe is the most likely case...

 

[idav]

this is off topic, but i was wondering if cosmologists had any idea, or way to determine, where the big bang originated from. I thought that would be interesting to know the projection point of where the light came from.

it just surprised me that some still believe the universe is eternal.

Yet Im sure those same people balk at those who believe the earth is flat. mind boggling on both accounts. '

People like hawking have been trying to figure it out without having to say the universe has a beginning, because it leaves room for a creation event. The idea still being looked at is the no boundary universe(with no initial boundaries of space or time thus no beginning, eternal in a sense of no time ) but nothing I have seen tells us where the stuff comes from. There is the something from nothing idea where nothing is just unstable and just pops out universes.

Hartle

 

[ArtieE]

People like hawking have been trying to figure it out without having to say the universe has a beginning, because it leaves room for a creation event. The idea still being looked at is the no boundary universe(with no initial boundaries of space or time thus no beginning, eternal in a sense of no time ) but nothing I have seen tells us where the stuff comes from. There is the something from nothing idea where nothing is just unstable and just pops out universes.

Hartle

How about this theory? Was our universe born inside a black hole in another universe?

 

[metis]

this is off topic, but i was wondering if cosmologists had any idea, or way to determine, where the big bang originated from. I thought that would be interesting to know the projection point of where the light came from.

Let me comment on this a bit. There literally is no way of knowing with any certainty of being correct what actually caused our minute universe of 13.7 billion years ago to expand to what it is now. Yes, there are a series of hypotheses that might be correct, but there also may be something that could be true not yet imagined.

"Brane Theory" has it that maybe a couple of relatively large "membranes" made up of subatomic particles may have "rubbed" across each other, thus spinning off a small segment that became our universe. Supposedly, according to the cosmologists, this is a mathematical possibility (don't ask me how it is as such because I'm neither a cosmologist nor a mathematician).

I don't expect you to go out and buy this book, but "The Universe Before the Big Bang" by Maurizio Gasperini, does an excellent job, imo, of covering various hypotheses, but even he doesn't speculate which, if any, may be correct.

 

[metis]

it just surprised me that some still believe the universe is eternal.

Yet Im sure those same people balk at those who believe the earth is flat. mind boggling on both accounts. '

Part of the problem with the above is how does one define "universe", which is an ever-changing entity that's vastly different now that 13.7 billion years ago?

Most cosmologists tend to agree that there had to be a cause, but actually more of a series of causes since there are causes of causes, if you know what I mean. Quantum mechanics has shown us that when we get down to that minute level, just about anything may happen, but that doesn't mean or imply there's no causation.

Most cosmologists and quantum physicists feel that it's likely that sub-atomic particles and/or the composition of these particles, such as what "string theory" hypothesizes, may go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

 

[idav]

How about this theory? Was our universe born inside a black hole in another universe?

This would cause an infinite regression which sidesteps the issue. With the universe coming from a black hole, I suppose this black hole came from another universe?