Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Polymath257]

Then who does an atheist think created the BB?

Under the standard model, the BB was not created. There was no 'cause'.

 

[Pogo]

But you were all indignant when I said that atheists believe that the universe invented itself. Now you are admitting that it did, for if you believe there is no creator God, the universe had to have started itself in a BB. Yes?

No, for the umpteenth time not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god. Personally, all the gods that have been posited by humans are unbelievable, but that is not a positive statement that they cannot or do not exist.

 

[wellwisher]

So that's a no, then .. you would NOT like to remind us..
..just witter on.


Science cannot tell you anything about the unseen .. only philosophy and religion can
explore those possibilities.
To suggest that science can tell you point blank that there is "no before the big-bang" is erroneous.

I'll try again .. would you like to give the scientific definition of time?
Would you like to tell us the definition of space?
They are physical dimensions .. whereas 'before the big-bang' would not be.


Ha ha!
Only the blinkered, narrow-minded and arrogant would presume 'their field' is the sum total
of knowledge.

In the same way, a blinkered, narrow-minded 'religionist' presumes science can be discarded.

Time is measured with clocks, which are based on changes of state, in space, over a chosen unit of time. Clocks represent time as space-time expressions. For an analog clock, the small change in space, of the second hand, expresses a unit of time; second. This space-time connection of the second hand becomes the standard we compare time. Our current perception of time, is not pure time, but space-time due to the nature of clocks. Even an atomic clock is a atomic vibration, in space and time. There is no pure time tool that does not also use displacement in space. A digital display uses the same space but creates visual change in that space, as a function of time. All clocks bias what we consider time. The hour glass or the candle, both of which can measure time, are based on displacements and changes in space. The day and year is the relative movement of the earth and sun within space. Each cycle, in space and time, is given a unit of time.

My theory is if we separated space-time, into separated space and separated time, we would no longer have space-time, and that biased measurement of time; clocks, would be ineffective. Before time is really before space-time. If space and time were not connected, we do not have tools to measure pure time, but would need to infer time from connected effects in space. But if originally unconnected, we cannot use the clocks, so this realm will appear to be outside time=space-time=clocks.

The concept of separated space and time allows us to model some advanced aspects of consciousness. Consciousness can create effect similar to separated space and separated time. For example, I can plan my vacation to the Islands, 1000 miles way, all while sitting in my office. I can plan the week in a few hours. In my mind, my thoughts are not exactly connected to the reality of the island in space-time, since I am not yet physically at the island, and this is not happening in island (clock time). However, I am planning so when I arrive in Island space-time, things are prepared and ready to happen when I appear. While in my mind, planning, there is nothing that would associate my train of thought to space-time, other than at a chemical level. What I imagine does not exactly exist yet, by any measurement of science, but it can become space-time active in the future. I have added time potential or the potential to exist in a future time for a duration of one week.

In Genesis, the Bible has God brooding; planning in his office, how to make a universe. It is his first one. All he has to work with is separated space and separated time, so nothing is yet tangible; formless and void, since space-time is not yet here. It all fluid like the imagination. There is no science proof of the universe, yet. It is stuck at theory. However, the blue print is coming together, in both space and then in time, so when space-time appears and clock time also appears; T=0, the time potential will lead the universe through all the steps in space, to its future; laws of physics. To now make the universe from what appears to be nothing, but thought and theory, requires gluing separated space and separated time together, so space-time can appear. The electron and proton have the same time potential as the universe and should last the entire duration.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And people should care about your uninformed, unjustified opinion because.......?

Oh well, if that is your reaction, no point in continuing..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not being observable in a physical sense is equivalent to only existing in the imagination.

Exactly!
..and then we need to work out what imagination is.

Without imagination, somebody like Einstein would not thought 'out of the box'
and come up with what they did.

Some people just regurgitate others' work, and believe they 'know it all'

It is just not possible to speak about 'time beginning at the BB' in a generic sense.
In a scientific sense, it might mean something .. just like the universe being billions of years old.
It's all about measurement IN THIS UNIVERSE.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh well, if that is your reaction, no point in continuing..

Well just contradicting something, without giving reasons, is rather pointless, so if that's all you're offering I agree.

Without imagination, somebody like Einstein would not thought 'out of the box'
and come up with what they did.

Indeed, but if his ideas had not been testable, then it would have remained just imagination.

It is just not possible to speak about 'time beginning at the BB' in a generic sense.

Of course, it is. The fact that you don't understand it, doesn't make it something we can't speak about. Our understanding of the basic nature of space-time is what leads to that (tentative) conclusion.

You do know the history, don't you? Before Einstein, it was generally accepted that the universe was static. Einstein realised that this wasn't consistent with his theory and tried to fudge it with the 'cosmological constant', but it didn't work. Even when an expanding universe was accepted, there was the 'steady state model', that postulated that matter was being continuously created in space (it wouldn't take that much) so as to keep the density of the universe constant and therefore still static.

The BB was really only generally accepted after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.

So, the 'start of time' at the BB was implicit in the theory from the start, it's people who had to be dragged to the conclusion by the ever-increasing evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course, it is. The fact that you don't understand it..

More patronizing..

So, the 'start of time' at the BB was implicit in the theory from the start, it's people who had to be dragged to the conclusion by the ever-increasing evidence.

You are more convinced with 'the illusion' than I am.

Your 'evidence' cannot apply to anything but this universe.
Of course, if your intelligence tells you that nothing else than what you can scientifically observe
(i.e. this universe) exists, then you are limiting yourself and your imagination.

It is not hard to imagine 'time' having no beginning or end, but you would rather hide
behind your calculations on the back of an envelope.

 

[ratiocinator]

More patronizing..

You are more convinced with 'the illusion' than I am.

Irony.

Your 'evidence' cannot apply to anything but this universe.

We are talking about this universe. Specifically, the overall structure of space-time and its extension, or otherwise, into the past.

It is not hard to imagine 'time' having no beginning or end...

Wow, really! Here was me thinking it was difficult... </sarcasm>

Just because you can imagine it, doesn't mean it's a reality. To have any confidence that what you imagine has anything to do with reality, you need evidence.

Can you imagine time extending back through the BB but changing direction, so it's the future in both directions away from the BB? Can you imagine time being cyclical? Both of those are based on serious suggestions based on making certain assumptions about how QFT works with GR.

GR alone gives you a start of time, and 'before the BB' being meaningless.

We don't know enough to be sure yet, but you seem to want to just assert your favourite version into being a reality. Reality really isn't under any obligation to be as you would like it to be.

...but you would rather hide
behind your calculations on the back of an envelope.

You are clearly totally out of your depth, and it doesn't look as if you care or want to learn anything. If you're determined to remain in ignorance, nobody can help you....

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly!
..and then we need to work out what imagination is.

Without imagination, somebody like Einstein would not thought 'out of the box'
and come up with what they did.

Some people just regurgitate others' work, and believe they 'know it all'

It is just not possible to speak about 'time beginning at the BB' in a generic sense.
In a scientific sense, it might mean something .. just like the universe being billions of years old.
It's all about measurement IN THIS UNIVERSE.

Imagination is a necessary way to create new ideas. But those ideas then need to be *tested* to see if they are correct.

Imagination alone (without testing) does not lead to truth, only uninformed opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

More patronizing..


You are more convinced with 'the illusion' than I am.

Your 'evidence' cannot apply to anything but this universe.
Of course, if your intelligence tells you that nothing else than what you can scientifically observe
(i.e. this universe) exists, then you are limiting yourself and your imagination.

It is not hard to imagine 'time' having no beginning or end, but you would rather hide
behind your calculations on the back of an envelope.

Sure, many things can be imagined. It is easy to come up with all sorts of ideas that have no basis in truth. The hard thing is to come up with ideas that can be tested and verified.

It isn't 'limiting' to demand that ideas have some way to be tested. That is just a necessary prerequisite for knowledge.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are clearly totally out of your depth..

No .. actually I'm not.
You insist that evidence from observations in this universe can tell us something about another universe,
or outside this universe.

I happen to believe that that is nonsense.

I am aware of theories of relativity etc. .. but for me, that is a mere deflection
away from the issue of philosophical time.

Materialists will accuse philosophers and theists of being wrong, as the evidence shows.. da da da da.

Me? I don't know my exact source before my birth, nor my exact destination when I die.
Nobody does, as far as I'm aware .. we only have beliefs.

Materialism is a belief. I believe in it to an extent, but am not limited to it.
I believe in that which is greater than myself .. greater than mankind.
A trillion miles, or a few miles .. it's only a measurement
A billion years, or a few years .. it's only a measurement.

The finite, and the infinite.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Imagination is a necessary way to create new ideas. But those ideas then need to be *tested* to see if they are correct.

There is no rush .. we will all die .. that is the ultimate test.

 

[Pogo]

Imagination is a necessary way to create new ideas. But those ideas then need to be *tested* to see if they are correct.

Imagination alone (without testing) does not lead to truth, only uninformed opinion.

And when understood reality is not enough for your imagination or your emotional needs, there is always religion and philosophy to justify your desires. Realize however that your feelings are subjective and so you should not be surprised that others do not necessarily hold them and that you seem unable to convince others of their validity.

opinions of the unknown are just that, opinions.

 

[ratiocinator]

You insist that evidence from observations in this universe can tell us something about another universe,
or outside this universe.

No, I do not. This is entirely about the space-time manifold in which we find ourselves, and the evidence that it affords about the past timelike directions through it.

I am aware of theories of relativity etc. .. but for me, that is a mere deflection
away from the issue of philosophical time.

"Philosophical time" appears to be something you've just made up to suit your preference or faith. A story you like, not anything you seem able to actually provide any reasoning or evidence for. A fantasy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then who does an atheist think created the BB?

That makes no sense at all to an atheist like me. The verb create is not relevant to the BB as such. There are other ways to phrase such a question.

 

[gnostic]

Without imagination, somebody like Einstein would not thought 'out of the box'
and come up with what they did.

Thinking “out of the box” is good, but only if it can be tested, supported by experiments or evidence, or both.

The tests are what determine if Einstein’s models have some scientific validity or not.

Had General Relativity failed with tests or the evidence have refuted the GR’s models, then the “out of the box” thinking would be wrong, and his creative solutions would be a failure.

It didn’t failed, because his explanations and maths were solid, and more accurate & complete than Newton’s theory on gravity.

All proposed explanations, solutions, equations & predictions in a model, must be tested, before it can be accepted as science.

That’s what you are not understanding.

Imagination & creative thinking alone, don’t guarantee that it scientifically correct. If it failed in the tests, then the imagination & creativity are wrong.

it is even worse, if untestable and cannot be tested: in this case, the model would be unfalsifiable, be deemed as pseudoscience. In this case, out of the box thinking would be considered wild imagination, a fantasy, or even a delusion…it would be no better than unsubstantiated speculation or opinion. In this case, unfalsifiable model wouldn’t even be a hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I can, what or who created the BB, and why, according to your belief? A humble "don't know' would be fine, if you deem it appropriate.

That is not a proper question. First it assumes agency by using the word "created". Second why assume that it had to have a start? One possibility is that that the universe simply is. And it is eternal with a beginning. That idea is not self contradictory. Your question cannot be properly answered as asked. It is an example of an improperly asked question.

 

[YoursTrue]

This symbolism reminds me of the desert, where there is no rain and few if any plants, except near an oasis where water springs up from the ground. It is very dusty. Through climate change, the weather pattern changes and rains begin to appear in that same place and plant life follows. The end of the last glacial period happened about 10,000 years, which is consistent with the Genesis dating; 6000 years ago there is a shift in the climate.

Humans have two center of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is common to all animals. Human have an inner self, like all animals, as well as an ego. The human inner self is innate to all humans based on our common human DNA, while the ego secondary is empty at birth and matures via cultural learning. This ego can be as varied as cultures and subcultures. I tend to belief that Adam and Eve, symbols the rise of the modern human ego, in men and women, which appear to have consolidated with the rise of civilization and the invention of written language. The ego appears around 6-10k years ago; end of the last glacial period. Genesis was one of the first published papers in science. The invention of writing, was needed before publication was even possible.

In Genesis, Adam is assigned the task of naming all the plants and animals. By giving them a name and writing it down, the animals formally appear in terms of the official written catalog. Until any science is published it is not formally accepted. When Einstein finished and published his theories of relativity, that is when we date the discovery, not the years of thought before that.

The appearance and consolidation of the human ego, created a more differential view of the universe, since it is more connected to the left brain. The inner self is more right brain like instincts, which are integral and spatial. The inner self is more immersed into nature, while the ego sets one apart from nature, so you can better see and notice all the distinctions that the inner self integrates. The animal, via its inner self can see all the things around it, but unless their instinct fixates on anything; instinctive interest, it is not cataloged the same way as the ego would do. The little differences mean much more to the ego. With the appearance of the ego, the universe would appear to suddenly differentiate to humans, as though it suddenly appears from nothing and comes into focus.

I remember taking my first chemistry course in high school, which became my favorite all time subject. After that, I started to notice the chemical nature of all the things around me. I had never thought of it that way before; immersion comes into focus.

In response--I took chemistry in high school and was in a club called the "intellectual club." I didn't think I was an intellectual much, but I guess some of them there did and so I was invited to join. Well, we were discussing atomic structure and how atoms are situated, meaning composed. And from what I saw in my science class, there was a lot of space there. because protons and neutrons are said to reside in the center of the atom, the nucleus, while electrons orbit around the nucleus. And so then I asked about desks. However they are made, they're pretty solid. Yet from my understanding of what composes the structure, the atoms themselves have a lot of space there. So -- even in solids I suppose (I'm not an expert) there's a lot of "space."

 

[YoursTrue]

Look at a globe. Take a point at the equator and draw an arrow in the direction of 'south'. Then go half way to the south pole and draw another arrow in the direction of 'south' at that point. Those two arrows will NOT be in the same direction. They are both tangent to the sphere and pointing in directions that are quite different.

Yes, when I was at the beach as a child I thought if I dug deep enough in the sand I'd get to China.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thinking “out of the box” is good, but only if it can be tested, supported by experiments or evidence, or both.

The tests are what determine if Einstein’s models have some scientific validity or not.

Had General Relativity failed with tests or the evidence have refuted the GR’s models, then the “out of the box” thinking would be wrong, and his creative solutions would be a failure.

It didn’t failed, because his explanations and maths were solid, and more accurate & complete than Newton’s theory on gravity.

All proposed explanations, solutions, equations & predictions in a model, must be tested, before it can be accepted as science.

That’s what you are not understanding.

Imagination & creative thinking alone, don’t guarantee that it scientifically correct. If it failed in the tests, then the imagination & creativity are wrong.

it is even worse, if untestable and cannot be tested: in this case, the model would be unfalsifiable, be deemed as pseudoscience. In this case, out of the box thinking would be considered wild imagination, a fantasy, or even a delusion…it would be no better than unsubstantiated speculation or opinion. In this case, unfalsifiable model wouldn’t even be a hypothesis.

So is the "big Bang" theory tested? or can it be tested?