Big Bang Theory Question.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar

3.) What is beyond our universe? To tell you the truth many people don't know. We can speculate on things like the multiverse and parallel universes/realities, but one of the most interesting hypotheses is the concept of "universe budding." We could have been a bubble of false vaccum that split from a much larger universe or universes. In essence we grew from the seed of another plant.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's entirely false. If nothingness existed before the big bang, and time didn't exist, time couldn't pass. If time couldn't pass, nothingness couldn't have and the big bang wouldn't have happened at all.

Just because the concept of measuring time didn't exist, doesn't mean time didn't.

The concept of measured time is the most flawed idea ever, because a human mind simply decided how we perceive time, we have no basis on how accurate it is.

-AC

In our temporal time dimension, everything happens in order but each individual event is dependent on another in order to happen. In the case of the Big Bang, it spawned existence as we know it, including time. We could have had a temporal

Yes, time is entirely a referential concept, it’s only to an observer’s point of view to view it as they see fit. Why do you assume then that “before” existed?

Originally posted by DarkC
The universe has three dimensions that we know of and acknowledge as existing, three special dimensions and a temporal one. That temporal one is time, and correct, it didn’t pass before Genesis because it didn’t exist at the time. However, time is only used to describe an object’s existence in a certain frame of reference. Perception is false here. The Big Bang happened from a point that occupied no space at all, how could time as a concept exist if it were to define existence of nothing?

In our temporal time dimension, everything happens in order but each individual event is dependent on another in order to happen. In the case of the Big Bang, it spawned existence as we know it, including time. We could have had a temporal

Yes, time is entirely a referential concept, it’s only to an observer’s point of view to view it as they see fit. Why do you assume then that “before” existed?

Your whole argument is based from what "we know" and what observers have accepted as existing. So the question shouldn't be why do I assume that "before" existed, it should be why do you believe you have the right and proof to say it didn't?

There had to be something before, there could not have been nothing, considering the nature of infinity. It simply doesn't make sense. If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded. The difference between us is that you feel nothing existed before the big bang, I do. So therefore it's my belief that time had to pass, and couldn't "begin".

If something existed before the big bang, then time had to whittle enough of itself away to get to a point where all the stars aligned, pardon the pun, and the big bang happened. You assume that there was nothing before because it's what scientists say. Even the greatest scientists in the field don't really have a grasp on the concepts of space, time and eternity. They can't prove nothing existed, and as a result, I don't believe it's true.

-AC

When you boil it all down, it makes sense to think something existed before for the "Big Bang" because we can't imagine absolute nothingness, even the vacuum of space is something. The question is where,when, what and how did this whatever it was begin?

And even then, what was before THAT?

It's just a dumb theory to say there was nothing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And even then, what was before THAT?

It's just a dumb theory to say there was nothing.

-AC

I tend to agree, but the question is how did this first "thing" (for lack of a better word) begin itsef or was there ever a beginning?

We can't imagine absolute nothingness and be can't imagine something not having a beginning.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded.
-AC

Infinity isn't forever thought, infitity is in a fact a finite number. It is part of the Rational numbers, its finite. In philosophy we attribute it to space and time. So are you saying that everything existed, before anything was created?

Originally posted by Ravencrest
Infinity isn't forever thought, infitity is in a fact a finite number. It is part of the Rational numbers, its finite. In philosophy we attribute it to space and time. So are you saying that everything existed, before anything was created?

Infinity is finite? Is that seriously the route you...wish to take in this debate? Because it begins and ends there, as it's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. What...you know, I'm not even going to ask how you arrived at that conclusion, or how it even left the house.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there was always something before. Saying there was just nothing before the big bang is dumb.

It's as dumb as saying "There's no God.". I'm agnostic, I don't know if there is or not, but in everything that exists, everything that we don't know or will ever know, it's more realistic to say "There might be a higher presence." than to say there's definitely nothing.

The same applies here. To say "Nah, was nothing before.", is just stupid. How do you know that? It's a theory, nothing more. Nothing supporting it.

-AC

I'm mathematically correct, so you don't have to get angry. Plus, I never said said "nothing existed" it appears I didn't take a steadfast I rather was trying to figure out your argument. So calm down, and don't call people simple-minded and such, because being in this thread and asking questions is in essence the peak of human evolution.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your whole argument is based from what "we know" and what observers have accepted as existing. So the question shouldn't be why do I assume that "before" existed, it should be why do you believe you have the right and proof to say it didn't?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There had to be something before, there could not have been nothing, considering the nature of infinity. It simply doesn't make sense. If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded. The difference between us is that you feel nothing existed before the big bang, I do. So therefore it's my belief that time had to pass, and couldn't "begin".

It might be true that time indeed might be infinite, but it is really impossible to tell even with the best of technology, is it? It isn’t absolutely necessary for everything to follow the natural laws of physics, especially if we can do and observe it right here on Earth. How could our sense of time exist in a reality, say, where no events occur at all and it’s in endless limbo?

I am not sure whether you’re knowledgeable about it, but at the atomic level, where the things like quarks, mesons, and gluons exist, the familiar concepts of cause and effect are completely nonexistent. Atomic chaos where nothing is predictable occurs. If unpredictability of this magnitude happens at the smaller levels, it has the potential to relate to how the Big Bang might have occurred.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If something existed before the big bang, then time had to whittle enough of itself away to get to a point where all the stars aligned, pardon the pun, and the big bang happened. You assume that there was nothing before because it's what scientists say. Even the greatest scientists in the field don't really have a grasp on the concepts of space, time and eternity. They can't prove nothing existed, and as a result, I don't believe it's true.

Yes, obviously you and I have to take the word of scientists since we have no professional expertise on the subject. However, despite scientific evidence suggesting that matter was created from nothing and that Newtonian physics can be warped at times, you yet assume that something must have happened before when there is nothing to support that. How is this rational?

I can kind of see where you’re going. You believe that there always was a before, there always was a present and there always will be a future. All these things have one thing in common, they suggest that time is a linear, independent and predictable process. It isn’t, not by any means. You realize that the relative velocity of travel compared to the speed of light greatly can affect the passing of time? It is a chaotic concept.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There had to be something before, there could not have been nothing, considering the nature of infinity. It simply doesn't make sense. If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded. The difference between us is that you feel nothing existed before the big bang, I do. So therefore it's my belief that time had to pass, and couldn't "begin".

Originally posted by DarkC
Human technology is at the point where we can gather what predictably happened in Planck-seconds(a mere 10^-35 normal seconds) after the Big Bang occurred. Yet everything “before” that is a complete void. Unknown. The presence of nothing doesn’t necessarily mean that something happened before.

What happened before the first Planck´s time is not just unknown but time and space can´t be defined before it. So they didn´t existed. Since the Planck´s time give is a limit to measurement, all that happened before it is not measurable and is not empirical. All we can know about that is just theory and cannot exist as an real empirical thing. So unless we redefine the concept of reality what is real and what is not, nothing existed before the Big Bang.

Raven; The dictionary defines infinity as infinite, and infinite as "mathematically immeasureable.", and finite as having a definitive measureable point.

Not sure what planet you're on.

Originally posted by DarkC
Don’t avoid the question. It is exactly what you said, how “before” the Big Bang exists. To answer yours, however, I believe I do have justification for my argument because evidence points to events and existence occurring after the Big Bang occurred when time begins. Human technology is at the point where we can gather what predictably happened in Planck-seconds(a mere 10^-35 normal seconds) after the Big Bang occurred. Yet everything “before” that is a complete void. Unknown. The presence of nothing doesn’t necessarily mean that something happened before.

I'm not avoiding the question, but they're not possible to answer because that would means I'd adhere to what you believe. You're asking loaded questions from the stance you, not I, believe.

You seem to have it decided that there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, and therefore time could not pass and didn't exist, as a result. I disagree, because I believe there was something. Not nothing AS something, something else entirely for time to pass.

Originally posted by DarkC
I agree, according to our world of physics and the laws we have established for it, there had to be something to happen to create the Big Bang out of nothing. Remember though, something that just “happens”, especially at atomic levels, does not need to follow Newtonian laws of Physics. Everything is simply a probability of happening, and nothing is absolute certainty.

I know, and that would apply if I believe nothing existed except that which is necessary for the big bang to happen (Something at atomic level of reaction.). I do not, though.

This debate was born out of you telling me I was wrong for saying time existed pre-big bang, based on your belief that nothing existed therefore time can't pass. I believe something did, so I believe time passed and as a result, the big bang happened. Well, not as a result, but you get the idea.

Originally posted by DarkC
It might be true that time indeed might be infinite, but it is really impossible to tell even with the best of technology, is it? It isn’t absolutely necessary for everything to follow the natural laws of physics, especially if we can do and observe it right here on Earth. How could our sense of time exist in a reality, say, where no events occur at all and it’s in endless limbo?

I'm not talking about time being infinite, I'm talking about everything being infinite and time being there as a result. With there being a before in which SOMETHING was existing, at which point time would resultantly exist, time could therefore, pass.

Originally posted by DarkC
I am not sure whether you’re knowledgeable about it, but at the atomic level, where the things like quarks, mesons, and gluons exist, the familiar concepts of cause and effect are completely nonexistent. Atomic chaos where nothing is predictable occurs. If unpredictability of this magnitude happens at the smaller levels, it has the potential to relate to how the Big Bang might have occurred.

You're too hung up on how the big bang occured out of nothing to see that I don't disagree. The big bang may have happened out of nothing atomically speaking, it doesn't mean that ELSE existed, though.

You're not looking at the bigger picture.

Originally posted by DarkC
Not necessarily, remember that nothing existed and suddenly there was the creation of everything, of matte, space, and time. If such things existed already, it doesn’t seem to make sense how or why the Big Bang happened. Space-time is real in the physical world, there is no denying that. The spacialization of time isn’t abrupt at all, it’s a continuous process and it suggests time can emerge out of space itself. It isn’t all one or the other.

That's exactly what I mean. "Remember that nothing existed and suddenly there was the creation of everything.". Remember? I never believed it in the first place. I don't believe nothing existed, I believe that is one of the most flawed theories a human mind can possess in what is becoming an ironic search for knowledge.

You say "If things existed, it doesn't make sense how or why the big bang happened.". You're a 16 year old boy, you honestly believe that you will be able to make sense of such things when the greatest scientific minds in the history of Earth cannot settle on a theory enough to prove it? I don't mean that in a patronising way, in case you took offense, I'm just trying to prove a point.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, obviously you and I have to take the word of scientists since we have no professional expertise on the subject. However, despite scientific evidence suggesting that matter was created from nothing and that Newtonian physics can be warped at times, you yet assume that something must have happened before when there is nothing to support that. How is this rational?

No, I don't have to take their word for it. They cannot prove that I am wrong. They can only prove that their theory does not coincide with what I believe, as you are doing. You make the mistake of taking their theory as gospel and subsequently let it lead you to the belief that I am not rational.

Not rational is saying there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, for sure. It's more rational to say there might have been.

Originally posted by DarkC
I can kind of see where you’re going. You believe that there always was a before, there always was a present and there always will be a future. All these things have one thing in common, they suggest that time is a linear, independent and predictable process. It isn’t, not by any means. You realize that the relative velocity of travel compared to the speed of light greatly can affect the passing of time? It is a chaotic concept.

You don't see where I'm going. I'm not of the Moore-esque belief that everything is happening now, past, present and future. The future is conceptual, nothing truly exists but the present. My point was that there's always a present, there's always something, in my opinion. There is simply too much space (infinite, in my opinion), for that not to be the case.

Therefore, before the big bang, there was something that time could pass, which is what the crux of this debate is.

I said time existed before the big bang, you said it didn't. Your reason for believing so is because you believe there was nothing, and you believe the scientists because they are scientists. All you can do is say "My theory doesn't agree with your theory.". You take your theory as fact, and then say "Mine couldn't have happened like it did if you are correct.", well then deal with that. That isn't my problem.

My point is; I believe time existed before the big bang because I believe there was something for time to pass. Nobody here can prove me undeniably wrong, can they? No.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
nothing existed before the Big Bang.

Prove it to the point that I cannot sit here and say "I disagree.".

-AC

Originally posted by Ravencrest
because being in this thread and asking questions is in essence the peak of human evolution.

It's not, is it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC

heheh. you're a smart guy, ac, and what's more you're arguing a point that cannot truly be refuted.

modern theory says that our universe was created by the collision of a brane in m-space. if that's the case time didn't start in our universe until the big bang, but it WOULD have existed prior to the singularity of the big bang in 'other universes'.

if no collision occurred -- ie., if nothing led to the singularity except . . . chance? divine intervention? 😕 then this becomes a linguistic paradox. we are speculating on concepts that cannot be conceptualized much less expressed in words. you're saying nothing existed, and because that nothingness "passed", there MUST have been time.

nothingness -> singularity = passage of time.

that's a common interpretation, and it's impossible to say you are wrong. it is equally impossible to say WE are wrong. 😄 after all, if no big bang had ever occurred, we would never have anything to measure [b]against.[/] you're measuring the passing of your nothingness against what? the eventual big bang, which coincidentally is also the start of time. 🙂

and if there was no big bang? there would be an unchanging (theoretically) . . . something/nothing, and within it there would be no way to tell one instant was ever, in anyway, different from another. if we cannot perceive any change at all, we can say no time has passed.

the concept of time is subjective, not absolute. at light speed, time ceases to exist to the entity travelling at c. if it can be non-existent within the universe, why not outside?

ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing. 🙂

Originally posted by leonidas
heheh. you're a smart guy, ac, and what's more you're arguing a point that cannot truly be refuted.

modern theory says that our universe was created by the collision of a brane in m-space. if that's the case time didn't start in our universe until the big bang, but it WOULD have existed prior to the singularity of the big bang in 'other universes'.

if no collision occurred -- ie., if nothing led to the singularity except . . . chance? divine intervention? 😕 then this becomes a linguistic paradox. we are speculating on concepts that cannot be conceptualized much less expressed in words. you're saying nothing existed, and because that nothingness "passed", there MUST have been time.

nothingness -> singularity = passage of time.

that's a common interpretation, and it's impossible to say you are wrong. it is equally impossible to say WE are wrong. 😄 after all, if no big bang had ever occurred, we would never have anything to measure [b]against.[/] you're measuring the passing of your nothingness against what? the eventual big bang, which coincidentally is also the start of time. 🙂

and if there was no big bang? there would be an unchanging (theoretically) . . . something/nothing, and within it there would be no way to tell one instant was ever, in anyway, different from another. if we cannot perceive any change at all, we can say no time has passed.

the concept of time is subjective, not absolute. at light speed, time ceases to exist to the entity travelling at c. if it can be non-existent within the universe, why not outside?

ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing. 🙂

Originally posted by leonidas
ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing. 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
We can't imagine absolute nothingness and we can't imagine something not having a beginning.

Agree; because we can't imagine nothingness...

the devil invented time....and she wears prada.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agree; because we can't imagine nothingness...

you're probably right, but that isn't what i was saying. i was saying we can't imagine what existed before the big bang. say nothingness, most people will think of a white room, or a black one -- they will compare 'emptiness' to nothingness. that is also incorrect. nothingness and emptiness only exist in relation to 'something'. there IS no 'something' before the big bang, consequently, there could be no 'nothing'.

there is just pre-big bang, and post-big bang. 🙂

That's true.

People confuse emptiness with nothingness.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's true.

People confuse emptiness with nothingness.

-AC

👆