Big Bang? Maybe not. It may be it's impossible to know.

[moonbogg]

Man needs obstacles to overcome to make improvements.

This has me thinking.

Regarding the OP, I don't believe its impossible to know in principle at least. I think enough can be learned to establish a foundation from which we can launch simulations and observe the outcomes. That way we can know the nature of what we have here and how it behaves under different simulated conditions. We can then use that as a comparator to our own bubble we seem to be stuck in.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes or no:

It had no beginning?

Your question is poorly formed. Wanna try again?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wrong. Reality tell us there can be no effect without a "cause".. that much is demonstrable.

That has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your question is poorly formed. Wanna try again?

It was deliberately asked that way, because I simply want you to say the universe has no beginning.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It was deliberately asked that way, because I simply want you to say the universe has no beginning.

We do not know that there is a beginning of the universe.

We DO know, however, that "before the big bang" is as meaningless as "north of the north pole," and it isn't because cosmologists are "throw{ing} complex math at it to make answering it moot" nor are they "giving up, or looking for an answer which fit something {they} already want to believe."

It should be noted, also, as I alluded to in an earlier post, that contemporary cosmological models do not treat the collection of everything in the future of the Big Bang as isomorphic to "the universe."

 

[Retro Rob]

We do not know that there is a beginning of the universe.

Fair enough.

We DO know, however, that "before the big bang" is as meaningless as "north of the north pole," and it isn't because cosmologists are "throw{ing} complex math at it to make answering it moot" nor are they "giving up, or looking for an answer which fit something {they} already want to believe."

Actually, I've heard, out of his own mouth, Lawrence Krauss even state that we can use "quantum mechanics" to explain that it [universe] has no beginning.

I am not making this stuff up.

Admittedly, I don't study nor follow this stuff, but there was a prevailing hypothesis in the 20th century that the steady state theory was a reality, but now that seems to be completely debunked -- I am more inclined to believe that they simply can't say for sure either way, and I don't think the question is meaningless as it is simply unanswerable at this moment.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Actually, I've heard, out of his own mouth, Lawrence Krauss even state that we can use "quantum mechanics" to explain that it [universe] has no beginning.

I am not making this stuff up.

I'm curious about the context in which this was said. You don't need quantum mechanics to explain a universe with no beginning. Quite literally, there's nothing to explain about a universe with no beginning.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm curious about the context in which this was said. You don't need quantum mechanics to explain a universe with no beginning. Quite literally, there's nothing to explain about a universe with no beginning.

Well that would depend on context and question of course. In an infinitely old universe you would have to deal with Obler's paradox and that's no easy thing to sweep under the rug. Any conceivable "no beginning" theory has that as a basic flaw to begin with.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well that would depend on context and question of course. In an infinitely old universe you would have to deal with Obler's paradox and that's no easy thing to sweep under the rug. Any conceivable "no beginning" theory has that as a basic flaw to begin with.

Olber's paradox makes several assumptions about the structure of the universe -- and it may be important to distinguish between the universe and the Universe, here. Multiverse cosmology describes an infinite sea of spacetime manifolds, for example. So, whereas our local patch of spacetime (the universe) may appear finite, and even have a beginning, the larger collection of spacetimes (the Universe) will be infinite.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Well that would depend on context and question of course. In an infinitely old universe you would have to deal with Obler's paradox and that's no easy thing to sweep under the rug. Any conceivable "no beginning" theory has that as a basic flaw to begin with.

Interesting point. I hadn't heard of the paradox, but I think you're overstating the problems it causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
"If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."

That paradox depends on no expansion (no redshift), and also a non-cyclical universe without a Big Crunch. (And without a multiverse as Cerpin Taxt noted above)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Olber's paradox makes several assumptions about the structure of the universe -- and it may be important to distinguish between the universe and the Universe, here. Multiverse cosmology describes an infinite sea of spacetime manifolds, for example. So, whereas our local patch of spacetime (the universe) may appear finite, and even have a beginning, the larger collection of spacetimes (the Universe) will be infinite.

That's fine but for clarification I was referring to the conventional concept of a causally linked universe, such as the original steady state. I thought I'd posted a comment to your dimension comments but I must not have finalized it. I'd mentioned colliding branes in higher dimensions, how our universe would be folded into a 4D manifold residing in a higher space, us being holographic projections and such. Again such things are inaccessible at least directly.

Regarding redshifts and oblers paradox I should again been more particular in wording. I should have said an infinitely old non expanding universe which could be distinguished from the big bang.

 

[Pulsar]

What lies to the north of the North Pole?

The south pole, because the second that you take that last step north, you're now moving south.

And in other news, if you always move half way to something before you get there, how is it that you ever get there? (If you know limits and calculus, just shut up please =) )

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The south pole, because the second that you take that last step north, you're now moving south.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're just joking.

And in other news, if you always move half way to something before you get there, how is it that you ever get there? (If you know limits and calculus, just shut up please =) )

You get there by halving the distance an infinite number of times, clearly.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Not peer reviewed. Why bother? Anyone can come up with some theory.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

We do not know that there is a beginning of the universe.

We do not "know" anything for certain. Given that, there's a proof that shows that there is definitely a beginning to the universe.

 

[Craig234]

We do not "know" anything for certain. Given that, there's a proof that shows that there is definitely a beginning to the universe.

That's not helpful on either point. A masturbatory comment on epistemology claiming we don't know any scientific claim is not helpful.

And your second comment is simply a dodge - while there's a clearly a beginning to the universe's current situation beginning with the big bang, what about a beginning earlier?

Seems to me that 'before the big bang' is a if not the leading question for science to try to answer.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

That's not helpful on either point. A masturbatory comment on epistemology claiming we don't know any scientific claim is not helpful.

And your second comment is simply a dodge - while there's a clearly a beginning to the universe's current situation beginning with the big bang, what about a beginning earlier?

Seems to me that 'before the big bang' is a if not the leading question for science to try to answer.

God created the universe. He is "eternal" since he is independent time, cause, and effect (all his creation).

As far as asking what is before the big bang, it's a nonsensical question. Time and space started at the big bang, created by God.

Asking or what is before the big bang is like asking what is the taste of the color blue. A nonsensical question.

Go ask Vilenkin et al. if you are still confused on why the universe has to have a beginning.

 

[Craig234]

God created the universe. He is "eternal" since he is independent time, cause, and effect (all his creation).

As far as asking what is before the big bang, it's a nonsensical question. Time and space started at the big bang, created by God.

Asking or what is before the big bang is like asking what is the taste of the color blue. A nonsensical question.

Go ask Vilenkin et al. if you are still confused on why the universe has to have a beginning.

No, actually, it's not nonsensical, and the argument that it is by posting a different question doesn't prove anything. By the way, LSD users could tell you how blue tastes.

Your answer is a non-answer, with no basis but religious assumptions.

Are you one of the 'universe is 6,000 year old' believers? If so, we're not going to agree much on the science. My question is directed towards science.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

No, actually, it's not nonsensical, and the argument that it is by posting a different question doesn't prove anything. By the way, LSD users could tell you how blue tastes.

Experience tells me you don't know your psychedelics well.

Your answer is a non-answer, with no basis but religious assumptions.

Are you one of the 'universe is 6,000 year old' believers? If so, we're not going to agree much on the science. My question is directed towards science.

What would you accept as proof of a beginning of the universe?

 

[DaveSimmons]

God created the universe. He is "eternal" since he is independent time, cause, and effect (all his creation).

I claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god, since he is even more independent of time and space. Ramen.

Equally plausible, equally scientific, equally pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Craig234]

Experience tells me you don't know your psychedelics well.

Not firsthand, no. But:

Sensory perceptions may blend in a phenomenon known as synesthesia, in which a person sees sounds, or smells colors, for example.

http://ask.healthline.com/galecontent/lysergic-acid-diethylamide

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We do not "know" anything for certain.

That isn't true. I know that there is no largest prime number, for example.

Given that, there's a proof that shows that there is definitely a beginning to the universe.

That isn't true, either.