I think you might not have seen the many atheist/religion threads on here in which we have been told over and over again from some atheists that the Big Bang happened, and that science is true.
As with any scientific claim, there is an assumed prefix of "to the best of our current knowledge". when our knowledge changes, so do the theories. that's all that's happened here, new knowledge has been discovered which impacts on the theories based on the previous knowledge set and new theories are proposed based on "to the best of our current knowledge". It's how science advances and also why religions rarely do and seem stuck in the dark ages.
I think you might not have seen the many atheist/religion threads on here in which we have been told over and over again from some atheists that the Big Bang happened, and that science is true.
I've never believed those claims myself.
You do know where the Big Bang theory originated, right?
No, I get that entirely. My point is outside of time, surely something still cannot just suddenly appear, although 'suddenly appearing' would be time dependent, granted. But surely it is still not possible?
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.
I read this story last night and I'll admit, it hurt my brain. The concept of the universe having existed forever is a difficult one for me to get my head around. I got the big bang theory, along with the big crunch, the idea of the possibility of a cycle of bangs and crunches, etc. and I guess I'd not thought about this cycle having existed forever, but i'm still struggling to get my head around how without a bang and crunch cycle our universe could have existed forever. And now my brain is hurting again.
Ok, so if this is right, what about Thermodynamics and entropy ?
In my minuscule grasp of this, if the Universe is infinite, where is it getting it's energy from to keep going. Does it mean it's an open or closed system ?
Ok, so if this is right, what about Thermodynamics and entropy ?
In my minuscule grasp of this, if the Universe is infinite, where is it getting it's energy from to keep going. Does it mean it's an open or closed system ?
No, I get that entirely. My point is outside of time, surely something still cannot just suddenly appear, although 'suddenly appearing' would be time dependent, granted. But surely it is still not possible?
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.
i would say "kant". Space and time are modes of perception....... And steven hawking agrees ......
I read this story last night and I'll admit, it hurt my brain. The concept of the universe having existed forever is a difficult one for me to get my head around. I got the big bang theory, along with the big crunch, the idea of the possibility of a cycle of bangs and crunches, etc. and I guess I'd not thought about this cycle having existed forever, but i'm still struggling to get my head around how without a bang and crunch cycle our universe could have existed forever. And now my brain is hurting again.
kant, again! This is one of his famous "antinomies" .......
it helps to remember that the big bang didn't suddenly appear in a pre existing space and time wifh x and y axes and clocks ready running ..... Before the 1st instant there was,just nothing ......
No, I get that entirely. My point is outside of time, surely something still cannot just suddenly appear, although 'suddenly appearing' would be time dependent, granted. But surely it is still not possible?
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.
No, I get what you're saying and this is what the paper sort of "fixes" - there's a point where we end up with singularities (where time == 0) but the paper avoids this by adding other terms where the singularity no longer happens.
Instead of thinking "suddenly appearing" think "where these terms make 3+1 dimensional space possible". Or something like that. The idea then becomes space has a finite size, but infinite time - so there's a concept that is "before the big bang" in the same way that we think of the calender as being AD or BC.
IF this Theory turns out to be correct, it only goes to show that a) science continues to work as we expect; b) that existing theories will always be superceded; and c) it doesn't mean current theories are wrong, just they are no completely correct.
After all, Newtonian motion didn't stop working because of relativity and quantum mechanics.
The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.
Ah, our old friend David Bohm. We've met him many times before in these threads.
A fascinating article and we could all have different views, opinions and angles on the issue. In fact the more you try to think about it the more it can give you an headache I often find.
But if something has an age then it has a berth or starting point. So that's why I can't see that the universe has always existed, but more very old. Perhaps there have been many universes in the past, and the universe as we know it or think we know it just another in a long line of universes where billions of universes could have existed before ours.
I guess we could also say that there is nothing in science that could ever dispute or prove that the universe and the science contained within it is not contained within an external force or existence that has an age of its own. Or that the universe is not part of or exists as some form of experiment or created existence by something or force that might predate our own universe.
I've always thought the universe is infinite and that someday we would have evidence and not just unfounded assumptions.
"I believe in something with no evidence, but think evidence will one day be found for what I believe in" is not a very scientific attitude.
Even if you turn out to be correct, it's still a very irrational and stupid attitude to have. The fact that you turn out to be correct is entirely by chance (and more often than not, you won't be correct).
We can only go where the evidence leads us. You can't go "Oh I was right all along!" if your irrational belief turns out to be true, because a belief based on no evidence is worthless in science.
Very interesting. I always suspected that the singularity at the start of the Big Bang model might cause problems and I had doubts that they actually exist anywhere e.g. in the centre of massive black holes. IMO something happens to resolve the singularity before it can even form.
Either way, I'm not convinced that we can simply jettison the Big Bang model. This new theory has to explain the current, almost incontrovertible evidence in favour of the Big Bang, which clearly shows that the Universe was quite different 13 billion years ago compared with as it is today.
I suppose it's counter intuitive because we think in terms of cause and effect, and we'd have to wrap our heads around infinity which our brains can't handle. Or to stop the pain, I'll settle for a breakdown in the laws as we know them, so you could have causeless effects.
Or even simpler... I don't know and physics hurts my brain.
Yeah, so much simpler that way but I do wonder if space-time distance itself has anything to do with the break down of laws as we know them?
God is Eternal - without beginning or end. Ergo, there has always been something rather than nothing. Energy too, cannot be created or destroyed. Surely that should tell scientists something?
I am sorry my friend, but you misunderstand God in such a bad way. God is not eternal, God is timeless. You need to understand that God does not adhere to time in the same way we do. Eternal means ever lasting, timeless exists beyond the constraints of time.
You seem religious so you should really know this, its in that stupid book you lot are always masturbating over (when it suits your agenda, you love the killing gays, but the next line down about killing people who eat shellfish, oh no, that one you ignore. Or the other ones that are not convenient for you, just skip them)
several different posts which invoke such incoherence...... I'm trying to say "think, before you write gibberish " .....
If you have a more eloquent description then please, by all means, share it with us. In all other instances I kindly request that you not be such a boor.
If you were to engage your own brain, you might realise that in this discussion "before time" might refer to a temporal state that existed before our universe formed/split off from a higher dimensional construct. And also, for a definition of "outside space" they may be referring to a theoretical higher dimensional construct.
Comments
As with any scientific claim, there is an assumed prefix of "to the best of our current knowledge". when our knowledge changes, so do the theories. that's all that's happened here, new knowledge has been discovered which impacts on the theories based on the previous knowledge set and new theories are proposed based on "to the best of our current knowledge". It's how science advances and also why religions rarely do and seem stuck in the dark ages.
You do know where the Big Bang theory originated, right?
I read this story last night and I'll admit, it hurt my brain. The concept of the universe having existed forever is a difficult one for me to get my head around. I got the big bang theory, along with the big crunch, the idea of the possibility of a cycle of bangs and crunches, etc. and I guess I'd not thought about this cycle having existed forever, but i'm still struggling to get my head around how without a bang and crunch cycle our universe could have existed forever. And now my brain is hurting again.
In my minuscule grasp of this, if the Universe is infinite, where is it getting it's energy from to keep going. Does it mean it's an open or closed system ?
i would say "kant". Space and time are modes of perception....... And steven hawking agrees ......
No, I get what you're saying and this is what the paper sort of "fixes" - there's a point where we end up with singularities (where time == 0) but the paper avoids this by adding other terms where the singularity no longer happens.
Instead of thinking "suddenly appearing" think "where these terms make 3+1 dimensional space possible". Or something like that. The idea then becomes space has a finite size, but infinite time - so there's a concept that is "before the big bang" in the same way that we think of the calender as being AD or BC.
After all, Newtonian motion didn't stop working because of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Ah, our old friend David Bohm. We've met him many times before in these threads.
But if something has an age then it has a berth or starting point. So that's why I can't see that the universe has always existed, but more very old. Perhaps there have been many universes in the past, and the universe as we know it or think we know it just another in a long line of universes where billions of universes could have existed before ours.
I guess we could also say that there is nothing in science that could ever dispute or prove that the universe and the science contained within it is not contained within an external force or existence that has an age of its own. Or that the universe is not part of or exists as some form of experiment or created existence by something or force that might predate our own universe.
"I believe in something with no evidence, but think evidence will one day be found for what I believe in" is not a very scientific attitude.
Even if you turn out to be correct, it's still a very irrational and stupid attitude to have. The fact that you turn out to be correct is entirely by chance (and more often than not, you won't be correct).
We can only go where the evidence leads us. You can't go "Oh I was right all along!" if your irrational belief turns out to be true, because a belief based on no evidence is worthless in science.
Either way, I'm not convinced that we can simply jettison the Big Bang model. This new theory has to explain the current, almost incontrovertible evidence in favour of the Big Bang, which clearly shows that the Universe was quite different 13 billion years ago compared with as it is today.
Who were you responding to?
several different posts which invoke such incoherence...... I'm trying to say "think, before you write gibberish " .....
Sshhh! You'll wake the Kraken!
yeah. I don't think the implicate order will help much .......
Also, do all planets spin?
it was one of them religious atheists who first proposed it, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
I am sorry my friend, but you misunderstand God in such a bad way. God is not eternal, God is timeless. You need to understand that God does not adhere to time in the same way we do. Eternal means ever lasting, timeless exists beyond the constraints of time.
You seem religious so you should really know this, its in that stupid book you lot are always masturbating over (when it suits your agenda, you love the killing gays, but the next line down about killing people who eat shellfish, oh no, that one you ignore. Or the other ones that are not convenient for you, just skip them)
If you have a more eloquent description then please, by all means, share it with us. In all other instances I kindly request that you not be such a boor.
If you were to engage your own brain, you might realise that in this discussion "before time" might refer to a temporal state that existed before our universe formed/split off from a higher dimensional construct. And also, for a definition of "outside space" they may be referring to a theoretical higher dimensional construct.