Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, not. The 'dark' is a way of saying 'it interacts at most weakly with electromagnetic radiation.

But what is 'it' that interacts with emr? Science does not know and iircc, that it is the reason it is called 'dark'.

So what is it?

It obviously is omnipresent, but then so is spirit, and ether, and qv.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

if General Relativity is to be believed, there simply was no '50 billion years ago'. In that sense, there was no 'space' (or time).

So if there was no space or time, that would equate with nothing, and nothing does not exist!

 

[gnostic]

A definition is not a fact. If that was the case, then this definition of God is a fact: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
Thus it is unknown, if there is more than the universe. Your argument is rational and not empirical.

That claim (highlighted part) is based solely on faith in superstitions, and often asserted through ancient hearsay. Nothing about this claim to be rational or empirical.

Empirical is what can be detected, counted, measured, etc, none of which would apply to any “creator” or “god”.

The main problem with putting an agent like God or Designer, or whatever you want to call this imaginary being, this superstition would require supernatural and magical being. Throwing around any supernatural in the mix with the natural, don’t help anyone with understanding how the universe work the way it do, because you would have to then rely on supernatural occurrences that unnatural and absurd.

The “unknown” about the universe, would be better served by honestly acknowledging that “We don’t know”, than asserting the imaginary “God did it” superstition.

Sure, astrophysicists have asserted the Dark Matter, only because there are more unaccounted masses that are out there that gravitationally constraining the stars and gases in place of each galaxies than the total number of baryonic matters of observable stars and gases themselves, as well as causing the outer ends of spiral arms (filled with stars) are rotating at the same speed as those ends closest to the galactic centre.

Likewise, there are forces at play, that cause the universe to expand. After the cosmic inflation that occurred within the fraction of the first second of the Universe, the expansion slowed to speed of normal expansion, but after some billions of years, the speed of expansion should have kept gradually slowly down. Instead, about 9 billion of years after the “Inflation”, it has been gradually accelerating again (but not exponentially, like the Cosmic Inflation), and it is still accelerating, today.

So what causing the acceleration, what forces are driving speeding up the expansion? we know the universe is accelerating its expansion, but we don’t know what driving it. Yes, they are currently calling this force, Dark Energy, but it most likely a natural phenomena than supernatural one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When you use the words 'came from', you are implying the existence of time. But time is part of the universe of spacetime. That is true whether or not time is finite into the past.

An analogy is to look at a globe and think of latitude as analogous to time and longitude as analogous to space. At any 'time' (i.e, any latitude), 'space' is finite (the latitude line is finite in length). 'Time' has a 'start' at the South pole and an 'end' at the North pole. Space starts as a 'singularity' at the South pole, expands until we get to the equator, then contracts again, ending in another 'singularity' at the North pole. The South pole represents the Big bang and the North pole represents a 'Big Crunch'.

Now, this is an analogy that is two dimensions down from what we see around us. In the analogy, 'space' is one dimensional (in fact, circular). In reality, it is (at least) three dimensional. But the basics of the analogy hold: the 'singularity' of the Big Bang is simply when time started. There is no 'before the Big Bang' in this model any more than there is a 'south of the South pole'. Space expands as time proceeds, and expands 'into the future'. As far as we know, the universe will continue to expand and not contract again (so the analogy is wrong in this particular--easy modifications can be made to make it more realistic--say a trumpet shape).

I am only interested in the reality represented by the analogies, if the analogies are incomplete then they are not answering my logical questions about the BB theory.

For example, what caused space and time to start?

 

[gnostic]

But what is 'it' that interacts with emr? Science does not know and iircc, that it is the reason it is called 'dark'.

So what is it?

It obviously is omnipresent, but then so is spirit, and ether, and qv.

Ben.

it took more than 2500 years, to come are with working theory about atom.

it took over 1500 years to discover that Aristarchus of Samos (3rd century BCE astronomer) was right about the heliocentric planetary motion. The Babylonian and Egyptian astronomy have for millennia tho the earth was centre of the system, the geocentric planetary system was made popular by Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century CE).

Since Galileo’s time to 1918, astronomers have all assumed Andromeda, Triangulum, and others were nebulae within the Milky Way, and that the Milky Way was the only galaxy. It was only when Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda, Triangulum were astronomical bodies outside of the Milky Way. Andromeda was continued to be classified as a spiral nebula, until early 1950s, that they re-classified it as spiral galaxy. Many more correction were made in that decade.

Peter Higgs with other scientists to develop boson particles that would explain the generation of mass on other elementary particles (eg quarks, leptons), in 1964. The Higgs boson was only discovered by 2012, with experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

Sciences in all areas, can take some times, for discoveries to catch up with some theoretical models. Some happened shortly after composition, others can take decades or centuries to solve or to resolve them.

Should they detect Dark Matter or Dark Energy, one day, they may change their names.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben.

it took more than 2500 years, to come are with working theory about atom.

it took over 1500 years to discover that Aristarchus of Samos (3rd century BCE astronomer) was right about the heliocentric planetary motion. The Babylonian and Egyptian astronomy have for millennia tho the earth was centre of the system, the geocentric planetary system was made popular by Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century CE).

Since Galileo’s time to 1918, astronomers have all assumed Andromeda, Triangulum, and others were nebulae within the Milky Way, and that the Milky Way was the only galaxy. It was only when Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda, Triangulum were astronomical bodies outside of the Milky Way. Andromeda was continued to be classified as a spiral nebula, until early 1950s, that they re-classified it as spiral galaxy. Many more correction were made in that decade.

Peter Higgs with other scientists to develop boson particles that would explain the generation of mass on other elementary particles (eg quarks, leptons), in 1964. The Higgs boson was only discovered by 2012, with experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

Sciences in all areas, can take some times, for discoveries to catch up with some theoretical models. Some happened shortly after composition, others can take decades or centuries to solve or to resolve them.

Should they detect Dark Matter or Dark Energy, one day, they may change their names.

Yes gnostic, I don't disagree, but the ancients were aware of/believed in omnipresent energy as you know, and I see no harm in science acknowledging that fact. It is not as though science would be endorsing religion or metaphysics in the process, but just allowing that humanity of all persuasions has been interested in the universal 'all that is' domain since always.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No but you are free to provide us with more that we can all find useful. Your Turn.

Well, I don't know about useful. But for if the universe is everything, then my answer is, I don't know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The word “everything” that I was referring to, that can be observed or detected, not just by our visual perceptions, but also by whatever devices or instruments using the technology that enable us to detect, quantify, measure, test, etc, some things that we wouldn’t see, hear or feel.

I am talking about everything as in the natural world of our universe, the smallest particle to the most distant galaxies ever observed, to the relic radiation (eg photons of CMBR).

...

Yes, how do you know that our universe is everything? Not talking or saying it is everything, but knowing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That claim (highlighted part) is based solely on faith in superstitions, and often asserted through ancient hearsay. Nothing about this claim to be rational or empirical.

...

We agree. The definition of God doesn't make that a fact. The definition of the universe doesn't make that a fact.

So if you define the universe as everything then it is not a fact, just because you define the universe as everything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not a point in favor or against, it is just something we are ignorant of and some want to use it against a belief in the existence of God.

But it is a point against a belief in it.
We don't believe in undetectable dragons for primarily that reason. There's no reason to think they exist.

Human experience, history, prophecy, philosophical.

So, the same kind of "evidence" we also have for voodoo, tarot card readings, astrology, etc.

The claims of history make spirits and God distinguishable from non existance.

No. Claims are just that: claims.
No amount of claims are going to make a difference in being able to distinguish things from non-existence.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, how do you know that our universe is everything? Not talking or saying it is everything, but knowing?

We don’t know of anything being “outside of universe”, mikkel.

All the matters (stars, planets, mountains, seas, life (that includes organic matters, eg cells & tissues), to particles smaller than atoms, etc) that we do observe, exist in our universe.

What some might believe or assume to be “outside of the universe”, including any god or some sorts of transcendent consciousness or universal principle, are only speculations that no one can verify (scientifically) or prove (mathematically), nothing more, nothing less.

If you really think that some things existed outside of the universe or of another dimension, then can you test or prove the reality of your beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don’t know of anything being “outside of universe”, mikkel.

...

But from there doesn't follow that there is either something or nothing, because it is unknown. That is how unknown works. It is unknown.

That is my point. Personally I hold no beliefs whatsoever about if there is anything outside the universe or not.

 

[gnostic]

But what is 'it' that interacts with emr? Science does not know and iircc, that it is the reason it is called 'dark'.

I forgot to ask.

What does “iircc” stands for?

I have not come across that before.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I forgot to ask.

What does “iircc” stands for?

I have not come across that before.

Sorry, I slipped in an extra 'c', iirc means "if I recall correctly". Another common one is 'afaic' meaning "as far as I'm concerned".

 

[Polymath257]

Welcome back Polymath.

But who is blowing the balloon up, answer that, and where did it come from if there is no nothing?

Nobody is 'blowing up' the balloon. In the analogy, three dimensional space is the universe of spacetime. Time is the radial coordinate. That is all.

ALL causality happens within the universe.

As I see it, the universe of spacetime 'simply exists'. It has no cause because it *cannot* have a cause since all causes are inside of it.

If you think we live in a multiverse, just exchange the word 'universe' above with 'multiverse' and all is well. We can then talk about a cause for our universe. And that is quite likely to be some sort of quantum fluctuation in the grander multiverse. But the multiverse would then be uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

I know and understand the analogy, but if the balloon expansion represents the future, the delated balloon at the beginning represents what?
It seems to me that the deflated balloon must represent the whatever it is that becomes the BB?

A less inflated balloon represents the past. Since there is no radius smaller than 0, there simply is no 'before the balloon'.

 

[Polymath257]

But what is 'it' that interacts with emr? Science does not know and iircc, that it is the reason it is called 'dark'.

So what is it?

It obviously is omnipresent, but then so is spirit, and ether, and qv.

Well, as an example, neutrinos are 'dark' in this sense. They are not charged, almost no mass, no magnetic field, etc. They do not interact strongly via electromagnetism. So they are 'dark'.

They were initially a candidate for dark matter, but it turns out that their small mass would make them relativistic which messes up galaxy formation. So, the dark matter that affects galaxy rotation rates is *massive* and 'cold' (in the sense of not being relativistic). That is why we have CDM: Cold Dark Matter.

We do not know specifics of what the composition of dark matter is in terms of fundamental particles, but there are quite a large number of possibilities. One I sort of like are axions, which are sort of a massive version of photons. But any weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) would also be a good candidate. This is mostly a particle physics question, not a cosmological question.

And no, it is NOT simply zero point energy (which is closer to dark energy) or 'ether' or 'spirit' (neither of which has any evidence of existence).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody is 'blowing up' the balloon. In the analogy, three dimensional space is the universe of spacetime. Time is the radial coordinate. That is all.

ALL causality happens within the universe.

As I see it, the universe of spacetime 'simply exists'. It has no cause because it *cannot* have a cause since all causes are inside of it.

If you think we live in a multiverse, just exchange the word 'universe' above with 'multiverse' and all is well. We can then talk about a cause for our universe. And that is quite likely to be some sort of quantum fluctuation in the grander multiverse. But the multiverse would then be uncaused.

How do you know that? And please don't claim it is so, because that is how it is defined. That would mean that the definition is what causes the multiverse to be uncaused and a fact that it is uncaused. That is absurd.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that? And please don't claim it is so, because that is how it is defined. That would mean that the definition is what causes the multiverse to be uncaused and a fact that it is uncaused. That is absurd.

ALL causes we know about are within the universe. Until we see causes outside of it, there is no reason to postulate such.

It seems you have difficulty with the concept of a definition. A definition is simply how we use language. So, if I want to define a smorgle to be a yellow unicorn, I can do so. From that point on, a yellow unicorn is a smorgle. A definition does not 'cause' anything other than how we use language. It does not imply existence of the thing defined (defining a smorgle as a yellow unicorn does not imply that unicorns exist).

So, as a matter of how we use language, the universe is *defined* to be all that interacts with anything we identify as physical. It is an inductive definition. An alternative definition is that the universe is simply anything causally connected to the Big Bang. In that case, the multiverse would be the causal closure of any particular thing. And, by causal closure, it cannot itself be caused.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ALL causes we know about are within the universe. Until we see causes outside of it, there is no reason to postulate such.

So it is unknown and no reason to claim there are some or aren't some outside. So there is no reason to postulate that all causation is in the universe.