The theory does spell out what the singularity was: a "point" of nothingness. Hence, no ingredients. And the theory isn't that "time was different." It is that time didn't exist. Period. No space, no space-time, no time. Hence, no "before."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
who or what created god
- Thread starter payak
- Start date
Yet they were calculating nanoseconds "before" space-time existing. There is a 'prior to' expansion.
The discussions of what was going on 10^-43 seconds are of the time after the big bang began. In other words, not prior to expansion, but during. There was no "prior to" the beginning of expansion according to the theory.
I didn't say prior to big bang, I said prior to space-time.
We can't say that either. We simply have no idea what the nature of the universe in the early moments of it's existance. Even after the first few nanoseconds a lot is speculation. But there is time.
Earlier you said, "no space-time, no time" but this isn't the case. The fact is it was just a different state of existence, a different state of time so to speak. There is a 'prior to' space-time just as there could be a 'prior to' expansion. Yes speculation and big bang just doesn't go into where the singularity came from.
I feel like this discussion is similar to saying theory of evolution is not abiogenesis. Theory of evolution starts with the premise that life exists and does such and such. Same as the Theory of Big Bang starts with the premise of a singularity and not really the origin, just what happened to existence at a certain point in time.
It is according to the big bang theory.
space-time is just method or concept in the mathematical modeling of relativistic physics. It just means that instead of a smooth, continuous (manifold) three dimensional space, we have a forth variable to deal with when it comes to mathematical models in physics (and according to some even more). However, these fail at the very beginning of the big bang not because "spacetime" or "time" didn't exist at that point but because we don't understand the physics governing the nature of the universe at that point. According to the theory, however, time began at the moment of expansion. There is no "prior to" expansion, at least according to the theory.
The theory of the big bang doesn't go into where it came because that has no meaning. There was no place it could "come" from anymore than there was a "before" the universe. In other words, the singularity is more or less a way to talk about nothingness. The point is that the big bang theory doesn't go into notions of when/where/what "prior to" the expansion because the concepts have no meaning. The singularity is simply a concept which describes and absence of all those things.
No big bang theorizes how space-time came to be so there is a prior to space-time.
Basically we don't know how time worked before space-time. You even admit that there is time before space-time but you also contend that we don't know enough about it.
The theory only goes by the evidence we have that the universe used to be in a different state and with math we calculate backwards to a single point. The singularity is an explanation of all the ingredients of the universe coming from one point. There were ingredients as we have evidence the universe used to be in a different state with different material before it got mass and became elements.
:thud:
The big bang, as I understand it, starts with the assumption of something extraordinarily powerful existing already. How all of it came to be is a valid question.
[youtube]gs-yWMuBNr4[/youtube]
Stephen Hawking - The Big Bang - YouTube
[youtube]gs-yWMuBNr4[/youtube]
Stephen Hawking - The Big Bang - YouTube
Friend of Bill W
Member
This respected scientist says you can...
[youtube]0ZiXC8Yh4T0[/youtube]
Lawrence Krauss: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube
Essentially they are trying to say there is no such thing as nothing. They get this idea because when you take everything away there is still something there but we don't quite know why yet. In a sense it would be eternal if it just always existed.
Actually the theory does address how space-time as we now understand it (the 4th dimensional manifold model) came to be. In the first instants of its beginning all the theory states is that matter and energy were indistinguishable, and therefore none of the laws of physics we are familiar with present. However, not only does the theory began to describe how the universe expanded and cooled into a recognizable universe where those laws did operate, it is also possible to speak of time at the moment the universe began.
It isn't that we don't know how "time" worked. Remember, space-time is a mathematical representation of a relativistic universe. It's a descriptive model. For most work in physics (not to mention life), it isn't even necessary. And there are still quite a few physicists who argue that the 4th dimensional view (space-time) is also inadequate, meaning there are still arguements about the adequacy of the space-time model of the universe. That doesn't mean anybody is arguing that time doesn't exist (well, they are, but not in a way that's exactly relevant here). The fact that we lack an adequate model to understand the physics of the universe at its very beginning doesn't mean we can't talk about "time." And the big bang theory does-explicitly. Time began when the universe did.
This "point" however is a "point" of nothingness. The evidence suggests that speaking about anything before the big bang is meaningless, as this "point" was nowhere at no time and of nothing.
What material? The whole concept of the "singularity" is a lack of material. Of anything. The concept exists so that we have a starting point to talk about the universe emerging. But according to this theory that starting point was nothingness.
Perhaps this is a better way to explain it than I did above. What Einstein showed was not that space and time are the same, but that they cannot be seperated as we thought. Space-time isn't another way of referring to both "space and time" or that they are the same. There are two (very related) better ways of thinking about this. The first is to understand how (or using what) Einstein connected space and time. He used the speed of light, and he and others developed conversion equations for time into distance using the speed of light as a constant. But the resulting "space-time" doesn't equate space and time, it just plugs them into the same equation as two different variables.
You can think about this geometrically as well. Classical physics relied on the 3-dimensional geometry we are all so familiar with. Not only was there no need to include time, but it was silly to even consider it. However, once you have the mathematical/geometrical techniques for converting units in this 3-dimensional system which rely on a unit (or dimension) not in that dimension, you need to include it. The result is 4-dimensional spacetime, a geometry and mathematical model which allows one to (among other things) convert between units of time and space, as the two are not seperate.
To say that "space-time" didn't exist at the moment the universe began is not to say that time did not exist. It simply means that the state of the universe was such that our 4th dimensional mathematical descriptions don't work at this time. For one thing, the speed of light wasn't a constant, as the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. The relation between space and time depends on light as a constant. If the universe is expanding faster than light, the equation(s) relating space and time don't work. That's without getting into the problems posed by the nature of matter at that time.
However, all of this just means that our inability to describe "space-time" at the moment the universe began means an in ability to relate space and time using the speed of light. It doesn't mean that time didn't exist.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
The analogy would be something like the singularity is abiogenesis and the big bang evolution.
"
Everywhere! Every place in space came from the Big Bang. It is space itself that has stretched. The erroneous concept that you can point to a spot in the sky and say that the Big Bang happened at that spot is a result of the incorrect mental picture of debris flung out through space in an explosion-like event.
WMAP Site FAQs
The singularity is what happens if you keep going backwards in time. But you get to a point where time doesn't make sense or math or really exist in this universe.
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe?
Amazing documentary hosted by Stephen Hawking asking the key question so many people have wondered since the beginning of mankind, does a "god" or a "celestial dictator" exist?? Stephen Hawking disects the science of the universe in answering this very fundamental question.
Follow-up lecture by Lawrence Krauss entitled "The Universe From Nothing" - you will all enjoy it very much as it will provide you a beautiful scientific explanation on how the universe came into fruition spontaneously.
[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube
This is Stephen's opinion, but he can show how the universe could come from "nothing" without breaking any laws of nature.
Many other cosmologist now, don't believe were the only universe.
QM then adds a whole new perscpetive to the classical models.
It was also really hot right after the big bang
The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN).
WMAP Big Bang Elements Test
"
- What is the Big Bang theory?
The Big Bang theory says that the universe was very hot and concentrated in the distant past and, ever since then, space has been stretching and cooling. This is the only theory that successfully explains the observations made by astronomers. - Astronomers see galaxies moving apart from one another: space in the universe is stretching. Astronomers see a remarkably uniform microwave glow everywhere in the sky; this is the heat left over from an earlier time, when the universe was very hot. This was predicted by the Big Bang theory BEFORE it was discovered! Astronomers measure how much of each of the lightest chemical elements (like hydrogen, deuterium, and lithium) are in space; their abundances agree with what was calculated to have been in an earlier time when the universe was so hot that it was like a nuclear fusion reactor, building up the lightest elements. The heaviest elements (like carbon, nitrogen, and carbon) were made later in stars. Stars are mostly made of hydrogen. The Big Bang theory explains the most basic observed properties of our universe. "
- What happened before the Big Bang? What happened right at the moment of the Big Bang?
We don't know. To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined. We know that our current gravity theory does not apply to the conditions of the earliest moments of the Big Bang. This is exciting research now in progress!
- Was the Big Bang an explosion?
No, the Big Bang was not an explosion. We don't know what, exactly, happened in the earliest times, but it was not an explosion in the usual way that people picture explosions. There was not a bunch of debris that sprang out, whizzing out into the surrounding space. In fact, there was no surrounding space. There was no debris strewn outwards. Space itself has been stretching and carrying material with it.
Everywhere! Every place in space came from the Big Bang. It is space itself that has stretched. The erroneous concept that you can point to a spot in the sky and say that the Big Bang happened at that spot is a result of the incorrect mental picture of debris flung out through space in an explosion-like event.
WMAP Site FAQs
The singularity is what happens if you keep going backwards in time. But you get to a point where time doesn't make sense or math or really exist in this universe.
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe?
Amazing documentary hosted by Stephen Hawking asking the key question so many people have wondered since the beginning of mankind, does a "god" or a "celestial dictator" exist?? Stephen Hawking disects the science of the universe in answering this very fundamental question.
Follow-up lecture by Lawrence Krauss entitled "The Universe From Nothing" - you will all enjoy it very much as it will provide you a beautiful scientific explanation on how the universe came into fruition spontaneously.
[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube
This is Stephen's opinion, but he can show how the universe could come from "nothing" without breaking any laws of nature.
Many other cosmologist now, don't believe were the only universe.
QM then adds a whole new perscpetive to the classical models.
It was also really hot right after the big bang
The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN).
WMAP Big Bang Elements Test
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Planck Time & The Big Bang 1of4
The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. Unfortunately, all of our scientific experiments and human experience happens over billions of billions of billions of Planck times, which makes it hard to directly probe the events happening at the Planck scale. Analysis of Hubble Deep Field images in 2003 led to a debate about the physical implications of the Planck time as a minimum time interval measured at the moment of the big bang.
[youtube]NhbOauJicGg[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbOauJicGg
The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. Unfortunately, all of our scientific experiments and human experience happens over billions of billions of billions of Planck times, which makes it hard to directly probe the events happening at the Planck scale. Analysis of Hubble Deep Field images in 2003 led to a debate about the physical implications of the Planck time as a minimum time interval measured at the moment of the big bang.
[youtube]NhbOauJicGg[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbOauJicGg
Ok. Well I understand and agree with what your saying here. Your willing to put time in the universe in a different state which I agree with. My issue is that the moment the big bang began to occur says nothing about the state of the singularity prior to that. The universe was just changing states and how it got to the singularity in the first place was also likely a change in state which then made it blow up like a balloon.
But it does, according to the theory. Extrapolating backwards gets us to the moment of expansion in which time and the universe began.
Not according to the big bang theory. The theory holds that prior to the "big bang" there WAS no universe. The singularity isn't meant to refer to a different state of the universe, but rather to the nothing before it. In other words, if the big bang theory is correct, the idea is that we can go back as far as the beginning of this expation (or explotion) in which the universe began along with matter/energy and time. However, going "back" any further leads to a contradiction. "Before" the instant of that expansion there was no matter/energy or time. There was no "before" to refer to nor a "place" for the universe to come from. The singularity is not really a state, or what was "before" the universe," but provides a conceptual method to understand and talk about the beginning of the universe: the universe expanded from a "point" of nothing at no time from no where otherwise known as the singularity.
To refer to how the singularity became the singularity or to speak of it as a state is to reject, at least in part, the theory of the big bang. People do, of course. Cosmologists also discuss the possibility of infinite number of universes. But the point is that the big bang theory gets us to the beginning of the universe, and the singularity is an abstract "point" to locate this beginning.
True but that has nothing to do with how time was prior to expansion.
Again this misses the point. There was no universe in the state that it is today. Same as the problem with time being different.
Show me a source that states the big bang theory says there is nothing before it.
True but matter/energy were just in a different state at the moment the expansion began. Did you watch that video I posted? Is there something in that video I might be missing?
We simply don't know. Your presuming there was nothing before it. Let me put it this way. At the very instant the expansion began there was something there to expand. Time before the expansion began could easily have been very different which is what people contend that the laws of physics as we know it were very different before the universe formed.
OK. Show me a source that explains that the big bang theory says that the universe came out of nothing.
The evidence for expansion is sound and the way the video explained it sounded very feasible but I have yet to hear somebody say that the big bang explains the origins. All the big bang really does is explain the current state of our universe and I feel like your putting more in the theory than is really there but if you have any sources I will take a look.