Big Bang Found

shadow71 writes: Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature

The fundalmental forces that manifest reality would not be able to influence a vaccum. So in order for there to be something there must first be spacetime. Prior to the existance of the universe there was no strong force, because there were no atoms. There was no gravity because gravity requires spacetime and matter..
There was no weak force either. Nor electromagnatism.

So in essence the answer seems to be prior to the big bang the forces that drive our cosmos did not exist.
I say that tentatively.

shadow71 writes: So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?

No, I believe Stephen Hawking was talking candidly in that little quote.
The only theory I know of in question of his is related to Hawking radiation. Whether or not black holes evaporate.

Hello NoNukes,

I fail to see how a force can act upon something when there is no something for it to act upon. But Im sure you can show me where this is possible.

As for the last correction, thank you but I still do no see how gravity can have any effect "warpage of spacetime" if there is no spacetime to warp.

Thanks for the explaination. I appreciate and will read your link.

So getting back to the original question then.

Do you know if the fundalmental forces existed in the absence of spacetime?

Does scientist know if gravity exists in a region that contains neither energy or matter?

regards,

NoNukes writes: I've already given perfect ratio reason to think he might be wrong.

Yes NoNukes, wrong about gravity but the questions still remains
and I believe is the salient point.

Did the laws of nature exist before nature?
Strong force
Weak force
EM
Gravity
I say I don't think so. What do you think?

Hi NoNukes,

Does your question have any meaning at all? I can grant that your question might have implications if in fact your question makes sense.

I believe the universe is self caused.
That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda....
So I will state it another way. The Universe exist because the Big Bang happened some 13 billion years ago. It could of been another universe bumping into another, or a spontaneous quantum fluctiation. blah blah blah... All we know is it happened.
There was no univese and now bingo..here we are. Now does any of this sound unreasonable?

NoNukes writes: The laws of nature are not external and human like. They are not marionette strings pulling at the substance of the universe. Instead the laws of nature are a descriptive of how the universe operates or how it does not operate. Perhaps it has always been the case that when two masses are present, they will appear to attract each other as GR describes

Precisely, a possible emergent property of energy/matter is that it will behave accordingly. I get that. I am down with that concept.

I am, and possibly wrong, but think everything is directed by the fundalmental forces that exist. Correct me if this is wrong.

Scientist at the present time speculate that the majority of mass in the universe is possibly dark matter and dark energy. They are trying to see how it behaves how it 'interacts' or why it doesn't. How inflation occured, or if it did. Now it seems to me if we do not even know the nature of most of the shit in our cosmos or how the unverse expanded faster the c (inflation). It is not a unreasonable question to ask if it is possible we are getting our marching orders from somewhere else? Alternate universe? Parallel universe? etc.. Is there a free lunch in the universe?
I know, I know do these questions even mean anything!

1.61803 writes: I believe the universe is self caused. That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda....

NoNukes writes: No. It doesn't. Perhaps that's the entire subject in nutshell. Germs cause you to get sick. You don't really need to assume an evil spirit is behind you getting a cold sore.

I do not. A virus disrupts my immune system in that case.

However we are talking about the Big Bang and what phenomenon was responsible for the big bang to happen.
Which caused our universe and hence galaxy and planet and eventually humanity.

I indicated that I believe the forces that drive our universe did not precede it. I have no evidence of this other than the assumption that in the absence of spacetime, matter and energy, from whence could such forces arrive or be derived?
WE DONT KNOW.

If one wants to believe the big bang happened because it is a state of how reality is. Fine. It is still a mystery.

Until we know the answer there is room for God in the minds of those who want to believe it.

AZPaul3 writes: If none of the operating parameters we know to exist in our universe actually operate in that period then what does?

Hi AZPaul3, We do not know yet. I agree with that one.
Hell we do not even know yet what the majority of the universe is composed of. I agree it isn't Straggler's ethereal trumpting elephants though.

AZPaul3 writes: Speculating this is some kind of supernatural god thingie is preposterous since such concepts we know to be wholly (holy?) human constructs.

Yes. But what if we do not know what this god thingy is yet?
Just like we did not know what Electromagnatism and gravity was. I agree it most likely is not some Monty Python cartoon head and hands in the clouds. More likely human nature in general making shit up. But somehow energy/matter became sentient.

It wasn't and now it is. Is it a science experiment from some super intelligent alien race? That we have been mistakenly calling God? Is it even knowable? I am open to all possibilities.

Edited by 1.61803, : add image of god

Hi Oni,

Not somehow - we have a very clear detailed history of how human life emerged. Like every other living organism we had a slow gradual process of evolution.

Evolution and natural selection occured and is occuring but has nothing to say about abiogenesis.

I don't dispute this. However it is still unknown how the big bang occurred. It is unknown if or how inflation occured, It is unknown how exactly how and by what mechanisms, abiogenisus occured.

Those are the processes that gave rise to the cosmos and abiogenesis life on Earth and eventually humanity. We know it happened, just not as yet how. Or do you have information I am unaware of? If I am incorrect I will be more than happy to retract my ingnorant statements.

You make a excellent point.

Oni writes: Abiogenesis and the emergence of sentience are separated by over 4 billion years. Your point was that of sentience NOT how single cell organisms emerged.

Well in the scheme of the universe whats 4 billion years?
And my point was it is still unknown how energy/mass has become sentient.

I just skipped over all the bullshit and got to the point.

Oni writes: You're brushing over it with a very broad brush. For each of those things there are some things know -

Sure like we knew what phylogiston was or how light propagates through aether?

Oni writes: Apparently you are unaware of all the work being done in these fields you've mentioned.

Are you kidding, I'm watching COSMOS man!!

AZPaul3 writes: ...creative mind hole...

lmfao!!!
That will be the name of my next band!! If you dont mind?

AZPaul3 writes: Don't do that.

Ok.

Edited by 1.61803, : fixed quote.

So a recap on the consensus of the main points?

1. There probably is such a thing as uncaused.

2. The Big Bang and some other quantum phenomenon could be examples of such.
(In the case of nuclear decay the propensity to decay is caused but not the actual decay which just happens for no damn reason.)

3. The universe is determistic, except when it isn't.

Such a interesting thread.