What was the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

On what basis do you presume that there is no outside cause when there's no evidence for anything, much less causation or the lack of it, prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is essentially an impenetrable fire wall for information, at least to this point, with no inkling from beyond.

I made no such assumption. You misread my post.

Exactly, we know nothing at all ante-Big Bang, which includes any theory of how it was initiated.

Actually we have an inkling that there may have been a before the Big Bang. But the evidence is not conclusive yet.

I consider agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism to be the only two reasonable positions on God. But the atheists have a point that we can't prove a negative. But the issue is the evidence at hand, i.e. the universe, and the evidence for it's initiation is absolutely zero for or against a spontaneous initiation or a consciously (God for short) caused initiation. My only beef with atheists is against the ones that claim certainty, the same as it is with theists who claim certainty, being as they are standing on thin air to boot.

Most atheists are also agnostics. There is no need of a hyphen. But yes, stating a certainty when none exists either way is annoying.

Re: the Planck Epoch, which is only argued against by those who disagree with the Big Bang. The singularity is an imaginary point from prior to the first instance the universe existed. In between there was nothing, because it, the Planck Epoch, was the introduction of the limit to divisibility of whatever preceded it, call it the Ether. How can you not call the Planck Epoch infinitesimally small. But even if it was large, I don't see the relevance in the first place.

BTW, the universe could not have been infinitely large, and expanded since then--by definition.

That is not true. At best our physics works to the singularity. At that point it breaks down. And the universe could have been infinitely large it is the known universe that would have been in a very very small area. Let me find a simple video by a physicist on it for you:

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

No one knows the answers to these questions. They're fascinating to ponder, but they are unknown as of now and may well never be knowable.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I made no such assumption. You misread my post.

Yes I noticed that as well. You only said there was no evidence which in Science means there is no claim to know, so you were not claiming more.

 

[gnostic]

Stephen Hawking thought he'd nailed from before the Big Bang which proved that God was not the cause, but that turned out to be what should have been a tremendous embarrassment, if he'd had any shame.

Hawking dealing mainly with theoretical physics in the physical cosmology, so a large of his works are mathematically provable, but in the real-world environment, untestable, hence no evidences.

Theoretical physics only provide possible “proposed” solutions, through mathematical equations (proofs), not through evidences, so anything Hawking say about what went on before the Big Bang and how the Big Bang occurred, is only a matter of unsubstantiated speculation.

My science background is only in the applied science areas, so I like my solutions to not to prove mathematically, but it has to match up with real-world testable evidences.

So mere speculations and complex mathematical equations from theoretical physicists don’t really count much, since it is only a proposed solution, not a real solution.

So while Hawking may be a mathematical and theoretical astrophysics genius, I am not in awe by him or by his fame.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Most atheists are also agnostics.

Do you have anything but anecdotal evidence for that. Just when I start believing it's one way, I start hearing a lot of noise from the other. Of course that could be the evangelistic atheists who always make more noise.

That is not true. At best our physics works to the singularity. At that point it breaks down. And the universe could have been infinitely large it is the known universe that would have been in a very very small area. Let me find a simple video by a physicist on it for you:

The singularity never existed. It's just a backward extension of the expansion vector which first appeared after the Planck Epoch. There was nothing until the universe appeared when it was one Planck length in diameter. The universe actually expands in minute jumps of that length, because that's the smallest possible division of space-time--and has been since the BB. Light also travels in minute jumps of that length as well. And the video seems to assume that the universe was compressed into the singularity. It wasn't, or at least there's absolutely no evidence for a Big Crunch.

And the video needs to be updated. A few years ago it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In fact, the edge of the visible universe is where the expansion of the fabric of the universe red-shifts out of sight to superluminal speed (relative to us), carrying everything it contains with it. So matter and energy don't break Einstein's speed limit for light which remains constant, which is why we can no longer see anything beyond that "edge".

Wikipedia: "During the inflationary epoch about 10-32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10 to the 78, equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so today."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No one knows the answers to these questions. They're fascinating to ponder, but they are unknown as of now and may well never be knowable.

One thing we know, at least as much as we can know anything, the universe is expanding, that expansion is accelerating, and thus it had a beginning. And suppositions about what there was "before" the BB is 100% speculation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hawking dealing mainly with theoretical physics in the physical cosmology, so a large of his works are mathematically provable, but in the real-world environment, untestable, hence no evidences.

But that's the point, there's no evidence obtainable from before the BB, and not even a theoretical mechanism which could begin to explain it, theoretical or otherwise. That's the problem, we've got nothing to work with from before, and that's why he had to walk back the statements in his book. He announced that "science makes God unnecessary"--but never said how.

Theoretical physics only provide possible “proposed” solutions, through mathematical equations (proofs), not through evidences, so anything Hawking say about what went on before the Big Bang and how the Big Bang occurred, is only a matter of unsubstantiated speculation.

Indeed, but he a vehement atheist. And again, there's nothing to base any speculation on about what happened before the BB. It is a non-sequitur that because this universe is rational and natural, what preceded it had to be as well. As several atheist scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins have had to admit that a deist God can not be ruled out

My science background is only in the applied science areas, so I like my solutions to not to prove mathematically, but it has to match up with real-world testable evidences.

That works very well as long as you stick to phenomena in the universe.

So mere speculations and complex mathematical equations from theoretical physicists don’t really count much, since it is only a proposed solution, not a real solution.

How do mathematical equations mean anything if there's not evidentiary basis for anything to begin with. How do you make theoretical equations about light if you've been locked in a dark room all your life.

So while Hawking may be a mathematical and theoretical astrophysics genius, I am not in awe by him or by his fame.

I agree. He became very embittered somewhere in between early on in his career when the wrote A Brief History of Time, and when he wrote The Grand Design, which BTW, is not mentioned in his Wikipedia write up except in his credits lists. I believe that he thought he had proven that there was no God, which is what he, in a very unscientific manner, had set out to do.

 

[Native]

Quote:
"What was the Big Bang"?
Was? It wasn´t anything and it isn´t anything but a silly theory.

 

[12jtartar]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

ThePainevulTruth,
To me, it seems that all these great ideas of the beginning of the Universe, is just wild speculation, by a bunch of scientists who have no idea of what really happened. But no matter how absurd their dreams are there will always be some who believe them, because, just as evolutionists say, the only other explanation is Creation by God, and that is unthinkable.
When you leave God out of His Creation, you have made the biggest mistake possible, slightly compared to leaving the speed of light, squared, out of the Energy formula. These wild speculations are what they come up with, with many of their speculations going against laws of nature.
Take the Idea of a Singularity; impossible, even though we know that 99.9 % of all atoms is space, if you took all the space out of the atoms that make up the earth, you would still have the size of a grapefruit, what about the billionions of stars, and the planets, which scientists have found out are more than the stars. Singularity??? At least scientists should dream up something, at least a little more sensible.
Then, just as impossible, is the Big Bang Theory, which is not fit to be even considered, because it goes against basic principles, that all scientists know; explosions cause chaos, the larger the explosion, the greater the chaos. Scientists say The Big Bang Was the greatest explosion ever. Let’s come up with a rational theory, please!!!
Even if any of these theory were possible, there would still be a great problem, what or WHO caused these things to happen, because they cannot happen in the Universe we know today.
Also, don’t try to use the concept of Zervanism, which states; with endless time and endless chances to happen, anything can happen. Scientist have even put this to the mathematical test, and found that chances greater than, I believe, 40,000 to 1 cannot happen, no matter how long infinity is. They have found that the chance that the Universe, just Happened, the way we find it today, is 1to all the atoms in the known Universe. Absolutely Impossible!!
This is the preposterous ideas of scientists who try to leave God out of His own Creation.

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

 

[Jumi]

What caused the cause of the big bang?

 

[Altfish]

Quote:
"What was the Big Bang"?
Was? It wasn´t anything and it isn´t anything but a silly theory.

Very insightful.

 

[Altfish]

ThePainevulTruth,
To me, it seems that all these great ideas of the beginning of the Universe, is just wild speculation, by a bunch of scientists who have no idea of what really happened. But no matter how absurd their dreams are there will always be some who believe them, because, just as evolutionists say, the only other explanation is Creation by God, and that is unthinkable.
When you leave God out of His Creation, you have made the biggest mistake possible, slightly compared to leaving the speed of light, squared, out of the Energy formula. These wild speculations are what they come up with, with many of their speculations going against laws of nature.
Take the Idea of a Singularity; impossible, even though we know that 99.9 % of all atoms is space, if you took all the space out of the atoms that make up the earth, you would still have the size of a grapefruit, what about the billionions of stars, and the planets, which scientists have found out are more than the stars. Singularity??? At least scientists should dream up something, at least a little more sensible.
Then, just as impossible, is the Big Bang Theory, which is not fit to be even considered, because it goes against basic principles, that all scientists know; explosions cause chaos, the larger the explosion, the greater the chaos. Scientists say The Big Bang Was the greatest explosion ever. Let’s come up with a rational theory, please!!!
Even if any of these theory were possible, there would still be a great problem, what or WHO caused these things to happen, because they cannot happen in the Universe we know today.
Also, don’t try to use the concept of Zervanism, which states; with endless time and endless chances to happen, anything can happen. Scientist have even put this to the mathematical test, and found that chances greater than, I believe, 40,000 to 1 cannot happen, no matter how long infinity is. They have found that the chance that the Universe, just Happened, the way we find it today, is 1to all the atoms in the known Universe. Absolutely Impossible!!.

There is evidence for the Big Bang, primarily the still expanding universe, which if you put that into reverse is one reason that the Big Bang seems the most plausible explanation.

This is the preposterous ideas of scientists who try to leave God out of His own Creation.

But the trouble is that when you throw this out, scientists then start asking, "Who created God?" So it gets us no further in our understanding of the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have anything but anecdotal evidence for that. Just when I start believing it's one way, I start hearing a lot of noise from the other. Of course that could be the evangelistic atheists who always make more noise.

I could, but I do not feel like it. You really should look into it yourself. I know that most of the atheists here fit that category. Very few if any are anti-theists or strong atheists.

The singularity never existed. It's just a backward extension of the expansion vector which first appeared after the Planck Epoch. There was nothing until the universe appeared when it was one Planck length in diameter. The universe actually expands in minute jumps of that length, because that's the smallest possible division of space-time--and has been since the BB. Light also travels in minute jumps of that length as well. And the video seems to assume that the universe was compressed into the singularity. It wasn't, or at least there's absolutely no evidence for a Big Crunch.

And the video needs to be updated. A few years ago it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In fact, the edge of the visible universe is where the expansion of the fabric of the universe red-shifts out of sight to superluminal speed (relative to us), carrying everything it contains with it. So matter and energy don't break Einstein's speed limit for light which remains constant, which is why we can no longer see anything beyond that "edge".

Wikipedia: "During the inflationary epoch about 10-32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10 to the 78, equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so today."

So you did not understand the video or the source that you sited. Once again, only the universe was we know it would have been in a very small volume. The source you have does not say that they entire universe was in a very small area. And the video itself pointed out how the "singularity" was a misleading term to people like you. Even your Wiki article does not rule out an infinitely large universe. It only states that the universe expanded greatly at the time of the Big Bang. The video makes the same claim.

You have an oversimplified view of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Watch the video again. The "singularity" was only the time when the laws of the universe as we know them break down. It does not mean that everything was concentrated in one point. You appear to be conflating our observable universe, and it is argued that the actual universe is at least many times larger than that, with the entire universe.

 

[dfnj]

The problem, as I see it, is that we can't quite get our heads around the concept of time. If time is the structure of mind, then the Big Bang is now. It refers to the initial premise upon which everything is based. Since I am an adherent of a mental universe, I prefer "in the beginning is the word". Pretty much the same statement to me.

Unfortunately, based the experimental results of quantum mechanics, one can only conclude the mental Universe is ALL that exists:

But regardless of the evidence and the results, the clockwork Universe materialists are not going to let go of their cherished beliefs. The clockwork Universe is easier on the brain. People simply refuse to accept the idea the Universe is complex, messy, and not possible to represent with clean mathematical equations. People just love their own dogmas.

 

[ChristineM]

27 non-spontaneous initiations? Do you have the list, or at least a couple of examples?



Do we understand it...the cause? And that the universe coalesced later is irrelevant. The raw material and natural law was there at the start.

Colliding membranes (various string/superstring theories)
Vacuum bubble (see previous attachment, quantum theory, a universe from nothing)
Colliding universes (Dr Mersini-Houghton et at)
Spawning universes (Dr Lee Smolin et al)


We understand that cause precedes event, and many attempting to pin down the mechanism for the bb make the mistake of assuming causality was definable in the same or similar terms pre bb.

Until the laws of thermodynamics began to coalesce around 10e-34 of a second after the event causality has no meaning. The natural laws were not there at the start, the substance of the universe was far to dense for the natural laws as we understand them to exist.

Was the raw material there at the start? As far as i know that is an unknown, even the world leading cosmologists don't know, hence the reason for so many hypothesis.

 

[dfnj]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang...]So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether.

There are many competing Aeither theories:

Aether Theory 101 | Blue Science

I like this cause for the Big Bang: Our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in another previously existing space-time dimension.

The evidence being the energy going into accelerating the expansion of our Universe has to come from somewhere.

 

[dfnj]

Cause does appear to happen at the quantum level, it's just that we have trouble identifying it.

What is the IT that chooses which quantum state gets realized? Forget God, whatever the IT mechanism is where does it reside and how does it work?

 

[dfnj]

What caused the cause of the big bang?

It's turtles all the way down.

 

[WalterTrull]

We understand that cause precedes event

Cause and effect/event are actually one. We love to analyze stuff though, so we limit our view to smaller and smaller sections of our observations. The "forest for the trees" line comes to mind.

 

[WalterTrull]

Quote:
"What was the Big Bang"?
Was? It wasn´t anything and it isn´t anything but a silly theory.

Well, it's a view of something, just not what many people want to admit, I guess. Ockham is in disrepute.