RE: What Existed Before the Big Bang SUBTOPIC; Before the possibilities ⁜→ dairyair, Aleksander Ulyanov, Zorro, Willreadmore, Pixie, et al, As several members of the Discussion Group have said: These questions are very good and get to the heart of the issue. This is a very good answer for a first approximation (Newtonian Mechanics and the first three laws of motion). And that is very useful for everyday science. But I do not believe that is the level of understanding that our friend "Aleksander Ulyanov" is exploring. (COMMENT) The question calls for an answer that attributes the initial force (explanation of the First Cause is the source of the energy) that is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature (supernatural) and in the realm of metaphysics.º. Zorro, Pixie, Willreadmore, and others have touched on the results of the First Cause (Laws of Motion, Thermodynamics, Entropy, Relativity, etc, etc, etc) and how it works with the framework of the universe; but not the original source of the energy. Some have suggested the existence of a deity or Supreme Being. But we cannot test that theory, so the answer is outside traditional physics and back to metaphysics. What we can be reasonably sure of, is that the results and outcomes of the initial release of energy came from some source. And what we do not know is if the initial source came as a burst, or if it was a gradual release. We do not know if the initial source injects the energy at a constant rate, or if there is some frequency or spectral pattern involved. We do not know if new energy from the initial source is still being released. And it is probably safe to consider that as we look back in time after the initial event (The Big Bang) there was a dark period before the basic particles were formed and light is ignited. So, speed and time (or space-time) are irrelevant concepts. And so there is really no way to determine how far back in our measurement of time is meaningless. You cannot measure time without the fabric of space (the yardstick) and the fabric of space (that dimension of the universe) was not created until after the dark period. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, "we don't know what we don't know." _____________________________________ º Aristotle on Causality First published Wed Jan 11, 2006; substantive revision Thu Mar 7, 2019 Most Respectfully, R
I'm just pointing out what scientific process requires. And, this process is what has allowed science to progress as it has. "Intelligent design" is a term that was created to indicate that god played a decisive role. For example, someone might claim that god guided evolution. In science, that is not a possible answer, because it can not be tested. It's perfectly reasonable to use terms such as "natural", engineered, etc.
Interesting ideas! My understanding of what cosmologists are saying is that the "dark period" was a period during which light could not escape - not that it didn't exist. At a particular point in expansion it became possible for light to escape. Thus we see the cosmic microwave background radiation - the echo of first escaped light. And, yes - thermodynamics, relativity, entropy, etc. don't address where that energy that ended up becoming us actually came from. For the question of where that energy came from, one has to look to theoretical physics and ideas concerning the environment of that energy - the energy that became our universe. Is there a wave function that hit a peak? DId something else collapse? etc. Or, like with all hard problems, we can say "God did it" and just be done with exploration! I'm seriously interested in continuing exploration if for no other reason that the fact that we have two fundamental models of physics - the standard model and quantum mechanics. They both prove to be unbelievably reliable. And, they don't agree!! As for my own opinion: The last time we had conflicting models of physics we got Einstein and relativity. Who knows what we might find if we actually find a solution to this new problem of models that don't agree? And, the study of the beginning of our universe is one place where physicists claim we can make progress on that question. That is one concrete reason for serious investigation.
You are lobbying for "God did it". And, I'm never going to say you can't believe that. But, let's just remember that is religion, NOT science. I do care about that part. There are lots of things for which we do not have answers. Every one of those is a candidate for "God did it", because another answer is not know. But, that is not how science proceeds. Let's remember that humans don't know everything. And, that isn't proof of god. It is proof of humans not knowing everything.
We scientifically infer intelligent design all the time. The scientific controversy over whether the SARS 2 virus was intelligently engineered is a perfect example. It would be absurd to claim that the claim that it was intelligently engineer is untestable. In criminal law, we scientifically determine intelligent design, even beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom. Win the lottery 3 times in a row and you can expect a knock on your door from law enforcement. There is no "prohibition" against inferring intelligent design in science, it's quite common. For example, how do you think we intelligently design and test any of the millions of product that massively advanced human knowledge and living standards? So you have said that the Universe stated as something the size of a volleyball, do you think that has been tested? I assure you it has not. I also asked you why you stop at that point? Is it your understanding that the time constraint = zero at that point? If that's the case, how has that been tested? You also said you knew of no scientist the recognized the singularity in cosmology, yet, I gave you the quote that heads the website of CERN, who confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson particle. Hopefully that has been helpful. Here's more: Planck epoch c. 0 seconds (13.799 ± 0.021 Gya): Planck epoch begins: earliest meaningful time. The Big Bang occurs in which ordinary space and time develop out of a primeval state (possibly a virtual particle or false vacuum) described by a quantum theory of gravity or "Theory of Everything". All matter and energy of the entire visible universe is contained in a hot, dense point (gravitational singularity), a billionth the size of a nuclear particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_early_universe
So the energy was always there? That is one answer but a singularly unsatisfying one. All things that exist have a beginning. Not necessarily an end but a beginning seems indispensable. I don't know why that is but it seems so. Then again, maybe the Universe DOESN"T exist.
Let me emphasize that "intelligent design" is a term created by the "Discovery Institute", a Christian think tank that promotes the idea that it's possible to prove God's existence by examining nature and showing that a God "must" have been involved. So, when you say "intelligent design" I point out that is a Christian religious belief system. "Intelligent design" is a belief that god did it. That is absolutely not possible in science, as there is no possibility of verifying what a god might do. My understanding is that there IS evidence of that. However, it may well be a matter of theoretical physics, which is the branch of physics that includes the creation of models that are based on everything we know from science, but extended in ways that could become testable and answer various questions. For example, string theory is theoretical physics - not testable and not part of the experimental physics that follows scientific process. That is a serious divide. Dr. Higgs was a theoretical physicist. His results were not considered part of science, because it could not be verified by experimentation. It's not just God that is excluded. You can't look backwards like you do with the Higgs particle. It was not part of experimental science, scientific method, until it was tested and found to exist. The fact that it turned out to exist was not a surprise, but that is irrelevant in terms of the rules concerning what is part of experimental science and what is part of theoretical physics. There are different views from theoretical physics on the initial size question. I'm not particularly interested in that question. If it wasn't the size I posed, I stand corrected.
LOL!!! This is a part that you cut out of your description of the original universe: "Other than a few scant details, conjecture dominates discussion about the earliest moments of the universe's history since no effective means of testing this far back in space-time is presently available." In other words, you are posting something from theoretical physics, not something determined by scientific process. This is the realm of physics that includes ideas that can not be tested and therefore can be expected to include various ideas that do not necessarily agree with each other, not to be confused with what we know from scientific method. Theoretical physics includes multiverse, string theory, quantum gravity ideas, and many others. They form a body of work from which it may become possible to test something and thereby exclude various of these ideas.
If all things have to have a beginning, what was there before the beginning to begin the beginning? Why couldn't energy have always existed. No energy, means absolute nothing? Would it not? You're trying to get an answer to something that is likely hundred of trillions of years old, based on earth reference of time. Which is only how humans understand time.
Einstein points out that our time is part of our space-time. If there is some OTHER time outside of our universe, I think it will be a while before we know about it.
Before the Big Before the Big Bang......there was God. (that is, even if he used a big bang to create) To God time is nothing. Most of us will probably understand that someday.
The problem here is that there can't be a "before" that preceded the big bang because there was no space for something to happen and no time for it to happen in. Maybe what ur really getting at is not what precedes the big bang chronologically but rather what precedes the big bang logically. Let's say ur watching a news reel of soldiers marching off to war and you reasonably infer that there's some kind of war gong on that some nation state had time toprepare for. This is what logically follows the guys marching to war and it follows logically even while it doesn't follow chronologically. So what I'm guessing ur might mean is that something logically preceded the big bang such that the big bang resulted from it. That's legal. Only problem is that there's no way of testing and observing the reasoning. It's all logic, like the ancient Greeks and their earth air fire and water. The equations for string theory are elegant and that's the big reason it's popular. The big problem is that nobody's ever seen a string so once again string theory's hardly any better than earth, air, fire and water.
You said that you knew of no one who thought the early universe was ever smaller than a volleyball. Here is Alan Guth, http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html Primary source: http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_02_cosmology.pdf
Exactly, just because you were unable to detect the intelligent designer would not compel you to fashion weird theories about how it simply formed from the random distribution of the effects of natural law. The evidence for intelligent design is the object under study, that is simply the most logical explanation for its existence.
Good. But, we don't know what is "outside", "before", etc., our universe. So I would propose we don't know if a concept of time exists there. True? I think there are other problems, too. >>For one, string theory postulates strings, but what gave rise to strings? I think string theory simply moves down one more level - like we figured out more and more basic particles -molecules, atoms, quarks, ... It doesn't answer anything actually fundamental! That's not really an answer to the questions here, is it? >>Next, there are LOTS of string theories. And, of course we can't test any of them. All that can be done is examine them more closely to determine if there is any chance that our known universe could arise from any of them. Plus, there are a good number of approaches that aren't string theories. ==== There's this case that I can't cite, but is interesting I think. There was a measurement made by cosmologists that didn't match our known model of physics!! Everybody got really excited, as physicist live their LIVES hoping they can prove existing models to be crap! The one big disappointment at the Cern particle collider is that the results don't break our physics. Physics advances when things break! So, yes - there was a LOT of excitement. Following that in a matter of about a day, there were literally dozens of string theories presented that would explain the new data from cosmologists!! Then, it was found that the measurement by the cosmologists was in error by ever so small an amount - not surprising due to the incredible difficulty. The corrected data supported the model of physics we have today! So disappointing. And, clearly demonstrating the problem of having no way to test!
"God" is not a simple answer!! In fact, it is an answer that can NEVER be tested. You are making all sorts of nonsensical limitations in your story. Even if NO evidence can be found regardless of years of examination, ALL it means is "I don't know". In science, you have to propose an hypothesis that can be tested. Then, you have to test that hypothesis. Your hypothesis can not be "god did it", because there is no way to test that. You should know from your exposure to religion that God tests man. Humans don't test god. If you choose to believe that you found something made by God, that is RELIGION, not science.
OK, Dr. Guth believes that. But, he has no way of testing that, so it is theoretical physics, not a result of scientific method and thus hypothetical. He may be right. I'm not arguing about that. I'm pointing out how science is divided between those who work on creating ideas that can't even be tested and those who use scientific method - which is commonly called science.
It feels like we're talking past each other and that you are trying to engage me in some sort of dogmatic turf war that does not interest me. I enjoyed the earlier part of our discussion on the expansion of space and the speed of light and I thank you for sharing your point of view.
Think about the title of the OP. "What existed before the Big Bang?" Can science explore what is causally prior to Time = Any value? I don't see how it can, so the question posed in the Topic title, to me, by its very nature is a metaphysical question. That in no sense makes it a meaningless question, in fact the question "Why does the Universe exist, rather than nothing? Why do I exist?" are questions humans have likely been asking themselves for a hundred thousand years or more. Further, if we imagine a metaphysical cause that adequately explains the effect, the universe, does it necessarily have to be an intelligent cause? While there may be very good reasons to conclude that it is, I don't know that it is necessarily the case. Another thing, and I don't mean to quibble, but, isn't the first question whether an absolute beginning is the inference to the best explanation? If the universe is eternal, it does not seem to me that a cause would be required as, if it has always existed, it makes no sense to me to ask how it was produced as there is no instant when it did not exist.
I do get excited when the issue is what is science and what is not science. I think that's the only part of your posts I've questioned - admittedly not the OP, but it's hard to discuss stuff in the science section without having a mutual understanding of what science is and what science is not.
This topic deals with what is "before" (better stated causally prior) to the Big Bang. How is that not metaphysics? And if so, and if you have no interest in metaphysics, why are you involved in this discussion? Please allow me to be clear, I'm not asking you to leave, before you got on this dogmatic verificationism kick, I was getting a great deal out of your posts.
