Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before the Big Bang
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 126 of 311 (396312)
04-19-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
04-18-2007 8:10 PM


Re: Where did you learn all this?
Do you understand that, in fact, we dedect particles coming from nothing now?
I think it easiest if I quote cavediver:
cavediver writes:
The Casimir Effect, virtual particles, vacuum/quantum fluctuations... none of these are an example of something from nothing, despite what popular science may say.
All are "simple" features of the underlying quantum fields. In fact, the Casimir Effect precisely proves that even in its vacuum state, a quantum field cannot possibly be regarded as "nothing".
Message 103

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 04-18-2007 8:10 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2007 4:52 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 152 of 311 (409834)
07-11-2007 5:08 PM


Nothing Before the Big Bang
In Message 299 ICANT tries to support his position that the cosmologists vision of the universe is:
ICANT writes:
[A] story about the singularity appearing from nothing and expanding into the universe.
There are two problems with this concept that stand out. The first is the idea of something appearing from nothing and the second is for that something to expand into 'the universe'. The latter is probably sloppy wording since obviously the universe cannot expand into the universe.
Think the universe is a four dimensional entity. We can refer to any part of the universe by giving a spatial and time dimension. This is confusing so let's talk about a more simple universe with only one dimension, here it is:

*--------------------------------------!-------------------
time:0 now the future
We can describe anywhere in this universe just by using the time dimension. What we cannot do is describe anything to the 'left' of time:0 (or rather before time:0), it's just nothing. Not the absence of energy - nothing. It simply isn't anything. We could ask what is north of now and get the same kind of answer.
This is kind of a standard big bang scenario, the maths says the universe was hotter and denser in the past. However, when we plug in time '0' we start having to divide things by 0 and start getting crazy answers. The so-called 'singularity'. I couldn't give numbers but let us say that two basic camps came into existence when this model was being hashed out. One that asserted the singularity was real, and others that it was an artefact of the mathematics which was unable to describe time:0.
ICANT put forward Paul Davies as support, here is what he has to say:
quote:
In spite of the space-time linkage, however, space is space and time is time under almost all circumstances. Whatever space-time distortions gravitation may produce, they never turn space into time or time into space. An exception arises, though, when quantum effects are taken into account. That all-important intrinsic uncertainty that afflicts quantum systems can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.
The spatialization of time is not something abrupt; it is a continuous process. Viewed in reverse as the temporalization of (one dimension of) space, it implies that time can emerge out of space in a continuous process. (By continuous, I mean that the timelike quality of a dimension, as opposed to its spacelike quality, is not an all-or-nothing affair; there are shades in between. This vague statement can be made quite precise mathematically.)
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.
Even with these further details thrown in, many people feel cheated. They want to ask why these weird things happened, why there is a universe, and why this universe. Perhaps science cannot answer such questions. Science is good at telling us how, but not so good on the why. Maybe there isn't a why. To wonder why is very human, but perhaps there is no answer in human terms to such deep questions of existence. Or perhaps there is, but we are looking at the problem in the wrong way.
Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: Nothing.
Indeed, nothing happened before the big bang, nothing whatsoever. At least in some models. However, the model is not saying that a singularity 'appeared' out of nothing. Indeed, a singularity appearing out of nothing is 'something' that has to happen and Mr Davies clearly states that nothing happened so no 'something' happened which includes singularities appearing.
Further support ICANT puts forward is from here, which states that:
quote:
A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it.
Putting forward the further idea that even if something did happen prior to the 'Bang', we would not be able to find out what it was. Not that there was a singularity that appeared out of nothing.
ICANT then points to the introduction to a laypersons book on cosmology by Janna Levin. It doesn't explicitly state a singularity appeared, but it does imply it. Still - I'll reserve judgement until I see the completion of her argument rather than its introduction. The comment "There was once nothing and now there is something. " does sound impossible, but she was forwarding her idea of a finite universe and so that kind of language might come out.
Finally, ICANT refers to this which basically says "The singularity is the point at which time has no meaning." which negates the idea of the singularity 'appearing from nothing' since that sentence requires time to make sense and since time has no meaning the singularity can not be said to be 'appearing' from anything. Of course this leads us to clumsy language issues:
If I walk into a bar and someone says "Where did you fly in from?", I might reply "nowhere". That doesn't mean I was nowhere and I flew into a city and went into a bar. It just means I didn't fly at all. In the same sense the singularity did indeed appear from nowhere. However, the more accurate way of phrasing it would be to say that the singularity (if it was as a singularity) did not just appear at all.
To correct the 'story' proposed by ICANT then:
quote:
The big bang is a model that describes a singularity (or just a hot dense region of space-time expanding, or inflating
And to emphasise this is mostly the classic big bang model under discussion. Such ideas about phase transitions, the gradual emergence of time, Higgs Fields and the like discussed elsewhere in this thread should be examined once the basic big bang model is understood. One of ICANT's links refers you to this which is an interesting look into the kind of thinking going on into the field.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 07-11-2007 10:01 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 311 (409904)
07-12-2007 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by ICANT
07-11-2007 10:01 PM


Re: Nothing Before the Big Bang
I see I put a cocklebur under your saddle blanket.
Well - the more accurate point of view is that I offered to discuss the subject with you in the cosmology forums and then you replied by repeating your position and then the thread was closed. I thought you were taking up my offer so here we are.
But now we are at the point there was something before the big bang.
No we're not. Read what I wrote again and you'll see that that is not the point we are at. At all. There was not something before the big bang - the singularity did not appear it is simply a coordinate in spacetime. Just like north is a coordinate on earth-surface and there is no north of north (I believe this analogy was first put forward by Hawking).
I say in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Then I am asked who created God? Where did He come from?
I say He always was. Reply, no way nothing is infinite.
Not from me - I say there must be an entity that exists without creation. You say that is God. I say it is reality (including all of time, past present and future) and that saying God is taking an unnecessary step back. Certain razors and parsimonious explanations jump in at this point.
Mod when I talk about the singularity I am making fun of it because I do not believe something can come from nothing.
Please read what I wrote again, because I state very clearly that I think that the idea of something coming from nothing is impossible. I go on to further state that the Big Bang model does not propose something coming out of nothing. I find it quite astonishing that I can write so much, even adding a reference for you, and you still think that the Big Bang with singularity model proposes something coming from nothing!
It doesn't.
The Big Bang does not propose something coming from nothing.
Something coming from nothing doesn't make sense.
The Big Bang does not propose something coming from nothing.
I believe that something or someone has to cause things to happen.
As do I. Though I think 'someone' is superfluous because 'something' covers that quite nicely. There are many good 'somethings' proposed for how very hot and dense universe can develop a time dimension and rapidly inflate. There are some good 'somethings' proposed for why there there was a hot and dense universe.
None of those 'somethings' are 'nothing'. Try reading this which I referred to earlier. One of your sources pointed to it. The subject is difficult so can you do me a favour? Instead of dismissing the whole thing with a short and glib response which repeats what you think the Big Bang is about...could you either spend some time trying to understand it. If not you can do just as well by not pretending you understand. Otherwise there will be a cocklebur under my saddle blanket.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 07-11-2007 10:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 07-13-2007 6:33 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 175 of 311 (410279)
07-14-2007 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by ICANT
07-13-2007 6:33 PM


Re: Nothing Before the Big Bang
I agree, it has never made sense to me.
The fact that it is nonsensical should give you some clue that cosmologists don't accept it.
A day without a yesterday. Sounds like nothing existed before.
There was no before. Have you been reading anything?
The Big Bang did not expand through anything. That leaves nothing.
There was no space.
The Big Bang created space and stretched it.
What is outside reality? Nothing is outside reality. That does not mean reality rests within an infinite void of nothing, it means there isn't anything in existence that is not part of reality. The Big Bang saw the expansion of space. There is no more to that sentence - there is no 'expanded into nothing' if you are going to keep it non-confusing the best thing to say is 'space is not expanding into anything'.
This is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.
What is the moment? The singularity or nothing? Why - its the singularity of course! So once again, the singularity did not appear out of nothing!
If these things did not exist before the Big Bang, then there was nothing.
Or rather - there wasn't anything. There is nothing north of the north pole either. Nothing is not a something, it isn't anything. There was no 'before' the big bang.
This meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space.
But there was no space for the single point to be as space did not exist according to the Big Bang theory.
The universe wasn't contained in a single point, the universe was a single point. There is no space for the universe to exist in now! That mind boggling statement works just as well now as it does about the singularity. The singularity did not expand into a space - but it can be a confusing proposition.
Still - my point still stands. The singularity did not appear out of nothing.
The Big Bang is often thought as the start of everything, including time,
Everything means there was nothing before.
There was no before.
Modulous it is time for science to do science and dump the Big Bang theory.
You don't understand the Big Bang - so it's rich for you to try and tell those that spend decades dedicated to cosmology what to do. However, the standard Big Bang model that we are predominantly discussing here is just cosmology with relativity. Not something that most cosmologists accept today - they have modified the theory to include aspects from quantum physics to give rise to inflationary cosmology.
There's no point going into that until you understand the big bang theory and given that you think descriptions of the big bang confirm your view that the singularity came from somewhere (which was nowhere) just goes to show how far you are from understanding. I recommend reading a good book rather than websites. Try Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.
Mod, I am just a simple farm boy, who was not educated in the sciences. But I do know that in my lifetime I have never seen something come from nothing.
I've said this over and over and over. The big bang theory does not propose that something comes from nothing. The sentence doesn't even make sense. Until you can get your head around this property of the big bang you're going nowhere with understanding.
Imagine the universe as a collective whole, the past, the present and the future all in one four dimensional bundle of space time. Relativity gives us the tools to begin to describe this four dimensional universe. The first being that as you move in the positive direction of time, space itself expands (not simply the distance between distant things, but space ITSELF).
Four dimensions is difficult so let's imagine less than that. One space dimension and one time dimension. This is a map of this universe

time space
0 .
...
.....
.......
.........
...........
.............
...............
now .................
That's it, that's all the big bang says. It doesn't explain where the first dot came from, it just says that at time 0 there was one. The idea that something happened before it doesn't make sense.
But according to all the statements concerning the Big bang theory above there was no space or time. That means there was either something there or nothing was there.
It is so very easy to fall into this trap. You just proposed that 'nothing was there'. Nothing was where? What kind of nonsense is that? Can nothing be somewhere? No!
And since time began, you actually mean 'then and there'. Nothing existed when? Where? Does it make sense? No. There was no 'nothing'. For as long as there has been a 'when' there has been a 'where' - that is the Big Bang It gets confusing because there was once a where but no when, or some amalgamation of the two.
Here you are saying there is an entity that was in existence before the Big Bang.
If and only if the universe was created - yes. In the classic Big Bang there was no before the Big Bang, but more modern theories have helped describe some entities that might have existed and interacted to give rise to the existence of our universe.
Let me sum up before the Big Bang:
There was no space.
There was no time.
There was no particles.
There was no matter.
There was no subatomic particles.
There was no energy.
There was no before the big bang. Sorry.
What did exist?
Where and when? There was no when before the big bang. There was no where prior to the big bang.
How you could have an explosion of trillions of degrees in temperature without energy?
You can't. Though the big bang wasn't an explosion.

My point to Mod was that the Big Bang theory states there was nothing by all the resources I referenced, and that now we have something.
None of your resources state that.
does not even begin to say it
Doesn't say it
does not say it
does not say it
does not say it
Not one of your sources says that the singularity came from nothing.
Either there was something before the Big Bang that the universe expanded out of.
OR
There was nothing and the universe expanded out of that nothing.
OR there was no before the Big Bang.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 07-13-2007 6:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 176 of 311 (410282)
07-14-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT
07-13-2007 9:57 PM


Re: Nothing Before the Big Bang
Doesn't matter just tell me at what moment "something" began to exist.
As long as there have been moments there has been something. There was no moment in which there was nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ICANT, posted 07-13-2007 9:57 PM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 190 of 311 (410440)
07-15-2007 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
07-15-2007 12:16 AM


Re: Please answer this one, ICANT
First of all the universe is not planet earth.
Therefore to compare our universe to the earth is stupid.
Fine. Rather than doing this over and over again. Come up with a 2D (or 3D) analogy for a 4D object, and we'll explain it from that - if the globe analogy is stupid I'm sure you can think of a better one!
I rather suspect you don't think very well in 4D so we'll need some kind of analogy in lower (and thus more understandable) dimensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2007 12:16 AM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 195 of 311 (410590)
07-16-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
07-15-2007 9:10 PM


2. this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.
Please explain. I don't see where it says that. I don't understand what a 'moment' is when we don't yet have 'time'. Creation of what? Where does your source say any of this?
So at this moment there was absolutly nothing and in this nothing there was a singularity, which could not exist if there was nowhere for it to exist.
It doesn't say 'at this moment' since that doesn't make sense if we haven't got time yet. It doesn't say there was nothing, it says that all of our universe was contained in a singularity - that is all that is, but it is far from nothing. And it does not say that the singularity existed in nothing. That makes no sense whatsoever, and is not what physicists consider to be the Big Bang.
The singularity exists in the same 'place' as the universe does now. If you want to consider that 'nowhere' that's fine.
Space did not exist.
Time did not exist.
Particles did not exist.
Matter did not exist.
OK.
Energy did not exist.
Not sure about this though.
If there was no space where did the singularity exist other than someone's imagination.
Where does the universe exist? It's the same question. In the standard model the universe just is. It doesn't exist 'anywhere' it just does. The same applies with the singularity. This is my favourite image of the universe. This one doesn't have a singularity because it takes quantum physics into account, but that doesn't matter for this. The question is, where is this universe? There is no space or time outside of it for it to exist in. Does that mean it is all in our imagination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2007 9:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2007 9:31 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2007 9:47 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 311 (410611)
07-16-2007 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by ICANT
07-16-2007 9:31 AM


Re: Re-Source
Hi Mod, hope you had a wonderful weekend.
Yes - twas great despite the rubbish weather we're getting here. Stood in the largest artificial free flying bat cave in Britain with several of species of bats gently caressing the side of my face Hope yours was as exhilerating as mine.
this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.
Yes indeed - I still contend that this makes no sense. What is a moment if not something that exists in time? This is the problem we face when discussing the big bang - but I suggest you look to a better source than this. I'll see if I can't dig up some quotes from a book on the subject rather than a short web article on it.
It says that all things was created by the explosion.
Which is one of the reasons I have a problem with this source...cosmologists are constantly trying to say that it wasn't an explosion. I think that this source has simplified things to the point of wild innaccuracy.
This is why I can't blame people who fail to grasp the finer points - the simple accounts of it are absolute bobbins. If you really have a passion to learn what the big bang is - rather than a layman's overview - you'd do well with more difficult source material. I urge you to let cavediver talk you through it and not to reward his patience with scorn or dismissal.
It says that all things was created by the explosion. My problem is if all things were created by the explosion how could there be a singularity as it would have been composed of all these things that is a result of the explosion.
That makes about as much sense as me saying I caught a 10 lb fish out of the lake in my backyard, when I don't have a backyard.
It makes less sense to me. Hopefully we can together find a better source, I'll skim through a couple of books at home and scour the web to see what I can find. I have a few memories of where to look for a more accurate account of what cosmologists consider the universe to be like but the maths-English translation invariably is imperfect.
Once you get that the standard big bang model simply states that the universe is a four dimensional entity with at least one coordinate at which relativity stops working (black holes being other coordinates with singularity issues) we can move on to the more modern ideas on the universe.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2007 9:31 AM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 199 of 311 (410621)
07-16-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by ICANT
07-16-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Re-Source
Brian Greene, professor physics and mathematics (The Fabric of the Cosmos, Penguin Books, 2005):
A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory ... that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after what happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all.
In a talk by Stephen Hawking:
[After Einstein our view of Time and Space was that] they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of the time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the south pole. It is not defined.
...
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself predicted the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand...The other interpretation of our results, which is favoured by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory.
One would expect this anyway because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure matter which is governed by quantum theory...[W]hen the universe is Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimetre the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.
In Order to understand the origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory.
These seem much better sources of information. The talk is about an hour long, but watching it should give you a better grounding into the issue and soon you'll realize that the standard Big Bang model does not suggest that a singularity appears from nowhere and then explodes.
I've located a written version of the Hawking lecture: here
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2007 9:47 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by molbiogirl, posted 07-17-2007 10:41 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 201 of 311 (410795)
07-17-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by molbiogirl
07-17-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Source
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't M theory side step the singularity problem? I'd quote Brian but I just this minute dumped the book into the return slot at the library!
Also. Brian mentioned the "pre big bang" ideas of M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano. Seems these two fellas managed to solve the string equations for an infinite, expanding "universe" "pre big bang". So, technically, there was something "before" the bang.
Sounds about right to me. However, we are talking about models which include a singularity explicitly - essentially we are sticking to big bang models using only GR.
Late edit: Here's a quote for from Greene:
The...more conventional approach [to M-theory cosmology] imagines that just as inflation provided a brief but profound front end to the standard big bang theory, string/M-theory provides a yet earlier and perhaps yet more profound front end to inflation. The vision is that string/M-theory will unfuzz the fuzzy patch we've used to denote our ignorance of the universe's earliest moments, and after that, the cosmological drama will unfold according to inflationary theory's remarkably successful script
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by molbiogirl, posted 07-17-2007 10:41 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 207 of 311 (411020)
07-18-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by ICANT
07-18-2007 1:06 PM


Re: confusing terminology
No it just means that I am examining the Big Bang theory without bringing in the concepts put forth by the string theory or m theory or any of the other theories.
As I understand the Big Bang theory, it says that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, Subatomic particles and thus matter and energy, space and time itself.
Feel free to correct those resources or explain them.
See Message 199 where I show that examining the Big Bang on its own does not give us any clue as to 'how it begun', 'what banged' etc. The standard Big Bang explanation is not up to the task and it doesn't pretend to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2007 1:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2007 5:06 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 210 of 311 (411072)
07-18-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by ICANT
07-18-2007 5:06 PM


geologists vs cosmologists. Which source to rely on?
I am well aware of where you quoted 2 men as to the explanation of the Big Bang theory.
And I suppose since they are Gods of science their opinion make it a concensus of a majority of scientist.
No - the reason I quoted them was twofold. First they are recognizable authorities. But more importantly in both cases they are able to explain the principles in more detail than a brief layman's overview. This allows for more precise and careful wording about the theory.
Why are you being so confrontational about this? Do you think that Stephen Hawking doesn't know what the big bang is in detail? Are you suggesting he's wrong about the big bang? Good luck with that.
The information below is provided by the University of Michigan bigbang htm.
I suppose this is what is taught in the classroom as there are no disclaimers with the article.
You are seriously suggesting that that a webpage dedicated to geoscience at the University of Michigan (or gs265 as the url indicates) written by two unknown people (geologists?), gives a more accurate outlook than a book by a string theorist and a lecture by a cosmologist??
You have some odd standards of evidence ICANT, but let's work with that. How about we ditch the geoscience page but we stick to the University of Michigan as a source.
This page says:
The simple formula d = Vt, gives us d = 0 at t = 0. Does this have any meaning? Obviously no measurements could be made at t = 0, or anywhere near such a "time." How far back in time can we meaningfully extrapolate? There is good reason to believe that we can make measurements now that apply to a time a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, or t = 0. These measurements are of the cosmic background radiation (CMB), and they are the subject of intense modern research. This time, t = several times 105 years, may seem like a rather long time, but it is only about 0.01% of the age of the universe. The current age of the Earth is rather well known from radioactive dating; it is about a third the age of the universe itself.
On the other hand, we believe that all of the hydrogen and helium, elements that dominate the chemical composition of the universe, were made in a small fraction of that time represented by the CMB. Indeed, these elements were made from more primitive materials, quarks and radiation, within the first three minutes of the time since the Big Bang.
There are no direct observations of the universe during the first several minutes of its existence. But we can make inferences of what was happening during this time with the help of theoretical models. We think we know the current density of matter and radiation in the universe now, and we know the rate of expansion. From this we can use a model to calculate the density of matter and radiation for any time in the past. We can go back nearly to t = 0, but current theories won't let us go all the way to t = 0. Some say we can use current models all the way back to t = 10-43 seconds, but to understand the composition of material coming out of the Big Bang we only need to consider the universe at an age of a few seconds to a few minutes.
That was an astronomist from Michigan University named Charles R. Cowley. Also, if we look at the books recommended by the amateur astronomy club at the university you will see that they recommend the work of Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking.
Beginning - definition of beginning by The Free Dictionary
be·gin·ning 1. The act or process of bringing or being brought into being; a start
That's definition 1. How about definition 6:
An early or rudimentary phase.
Or definition three
The place where something begins or is begun
If I said I was stood at the beginning of the corridor - you don't think I am standing at the act of bringing the corridor into being.
You then quote the wiki page on the Big Bang which states
All these observations can be explained by the CDM model of cosmology, which is a mathematical model of the Big Bang with six free parameters. As noted above, there is no compelling physical model for the first 10’11 seconds of the universe. To resolve the paradox of the initial singularity, a theory of quantum gravitation is needed.
What do you know it states that the Big Bang theory cannot discuss the earliest moments of the universe (the Bang itself) and that relativity alone is insufficient - a quantum theory of gravity is needed.
Which is what we've been saying.
The universe is either finite as the Big Bang theory says.
Or infinite as one of these other theories say.
Well - erm yes either the universe is finite or it is infinite - obviously. The Big Bang does not state that a singularity appears from 'nowhere' - it doesn't appear at all, it's just a point on a four dimensional universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2007 5:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2007 10:16 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 212 of 311 (411139)
07-19-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by ICANT
07-18-2007 10:16 PM


Re: geologists vs cosmologists. Which source to rely on?
But there was no four dimensional universe for it to be a point on as there was an absence of anything, until after t = 0
T=0 is a point that general relativity cannot describe without doing some maths that involves dividing by 0. That is all that can be said using the relativitistic Big Bang model. The singularity at t=0 involves suggesting an amount of energy taking up 0 space, which means the energy density is infinite. That suggests that was not an absence of anything, but the presences of an infinitely dense state which is quite different.
The early theory was that the universe was infinite. That is that it had always existed and would always exist.
Then the theory was changed when it was discovered that the universe was finite and that it had a beginning, a middle, and a future. Thus the Big Bang theory.
Now when there are problems with the Big Bang theory rather than can it for a better theory we will just modify it to include string or M theory.
The Big Bang theory was started in the beginning because it was discovered that the universe was finite and had a beginning. It did away with the theory of a infinite universe.
String and M theory have to have an infinite universe.
You repeating this despite it not being relevant. We are talking only about the Big Bang theory with a finite universe. Once you agree that the idea that something could happen before a finite universe makes no sense we can dispel this myth that the big bang predicts that before the universe begins, something appears out of the absence of anything.
That is the only point I am raising. I have put forward two cosmologists that confirm this description of the big bang and you have dismissed them, preferring what seem to be geologists. You have given no explanation for dismissing Hawking or Greene. I can only imagine that is because you lack the ability to directly contradict what they say about the big bang.
Until you decide to actually tackle the words of respected cosmologists on what a cosmological theory states, I can only assume you want to misunderstand the theory because you really want to be able to reject it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2007 10:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2007 12:49 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 216 of 311 (412501)
07-25-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
07-25-2007 12:49 AM


Singularity solutions are the subtopic....
In one breath Mr. Hawking says universe started with big bang that came from a singularity.
In the next he says the universe started from a point in space and time. No big bang.
Stephen Hawking is a smart man; He is able to accept that there are several possible solutions to Einstein's equations, and there are several possible solutions to quantum physics. He doesn't declare either one to be true - he just describes them and points out that they are consistent with theory and observation.
If you think that this is contradictory - you have a lot to learn not just about physics but about science.
Either way - under discussion between you and me, are the solutions to Einstein's theory that resolves in a singularity. If you'd like to continue talking about that - and talking about whether cosmologists believe that in these models the singularity appears out of 'nothing'. So far you have not shown that they do, nor that the theory demands that it should.
I have been reading a lot your God says about the beginning.
It's good that you've been reading up - but if you hadn't already you should try and read with an open mind rather than with a view to catching some kind of contradiction. If you look hard enough you'll be able to convince yourself of funny things. Also - Hawking isn't my God, he is one of of the gods of cosmology. And he's no Zeus, he's one of the minor deities, to be respected and referred to with awe but worship and sacrifice are not necessary.
That kind of reverence is reserved for the likes of the all Holy Newton and Einstein whose powers of insight we are not worthy to share a spatial coordinate with. All hail the evermind!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2007 12:49 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2007 2:25 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 218 of 311 (412503)
07-25-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
07-25-2007 2:25 AM


Re: Singularity solutions are the subtopic....
Can I use that the next time someone tells me the Bible is full of contradictions?
If you believe that the Bible is not the absoulute word of an immutable deity and is instead man's attempt to explain the world using appeals to the supernatural. Or perhaps that the Bible is a tentative document that you acknowledge can be falsified and there are equally good alternative documents that explain the universe.
I probably wouldn't argue it if you want to maintain the Bible contains absolute eternal truths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2007 2:25 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2007 1:02 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024