Was the BB created

@xris,

xris wrote:

I am right in believing that science claims it is the first observable event?I am right in believing there is no evidence of a before? Before the BB we have what is described as absolutely nothing,no space, no time ,no causes, no events.

The big bang does not say there was absolutely nothing. The BB makes the claim that the universe was once in a singular state, for this is as far as the theory can go. It can go no further as the model spits out infinites which are nonsense. In this state space and time have no meaning, the concept of before holds no meaning. Cause and events prior to the big bang can also not be defined.

xris wrote:

In my humble opinion we can assume therefore that if the universe appears from nothing it has to be created.Logically at this point in time there is no other explanation.Now if there are other valid reasons to oppose this opinion i would love to hear them.It is not written in blind faith or with a determination to see a creator but simply opinion by my logic.

Science does not say something from nothing. Enter the draw card of branes, higher dimensions etc as they remove the something from nothing. I am still confused as to how something from nothing is unthinkable and yet something always existing is more palatable. Perhaps we need a reconciliation between something from nothing and something always existing ie are they in some way complementary.

1 Reply

@validity,

I dont think the modern concept of a constant singularity is still valid, it requires to imagine an unimaginable amount of energy in constant control at this point of singularity.How do you have an infinite amount of time when the balance was maintained and then for a certain reason was suddenly expanded into the universe.We also have this conundrum if the singularity existed did time exist,by all accounts no,so either this singularity appeared from another dimension or it was created.For it to appear from another dimension why then?Why do we not see any evidence of this other dimension?Why is it so unimaginable that the universe was created,why is it so high on the scientific agenda that we can not allow the thought to be relevant?

0 Replies

@xris,

Again, though, you impose "it exists, therefore time exists" when none of the criteria for observing the passing of time are met. Also, what if the net amount of energy in the universe isn't so much?

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Again, though, you impose "it exists, therefore time exists" when none of the criteria for observing the passing of time are met. Also, what if the net amount of energy in the universe isn't so much?

So was it there or not this singularity and what was it?you cant just make up a word "singularity" and not explain it logically.Im saying it did not exist ,its others who make this claim.So the net amount of energy is not that much it can be easily contained,when you make a quick calculation of all the mass and convert that into energy its no small amount.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

So was it there or not this singularity and what was it?you cant just make up a word "singularity" and not explain it logically.Im saying it did not exist ,its others who make this claim.So the net amount of energy is not that much it can be easily contained,when you make a quick calculation of all the mass and convert that into energy its no small amount.

Rather simply, rewind the expansion of the universe,

p = m/v (i.e. density is mass per unit volume)

As the volume approaches zero the density becomes infinite. This infinite density is what I mean when I use the term singularity.

The singularity is a kind of breakdown in familiar concepts. A working theory of quantum gravity may provide new conceptual tools.

Bones-O! wrote:

Also, what if the net amount of energy in the universe isn't so much?

Or perhaps, zero.

1 Reply

@validity,

validity wrote:

Rather simply, rewind the expansion of the universe,

p = m/v (i.e. density is mass per unit volume)

As the volume approaches zero the density becomes infinite. This infinite density is what I mean when I use the term singularity.

The singularity is a kind of breakdown in familiar concepts. A working theory of quantum gravity may provide new conceptual tools.

Or perhaps, zero.

So it came from nothing, what does that infer?or it came from an infinite mass condensed into a singularity,so my questions are still posed.It seems to me all QM does is confuse the problem even more, it appears to make everything an illusion.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

So it came from nothing, what does that infer?or it came from an infinite mass condensed into a singularity,so my questions are still posed.It seems to me all QM does is confuse the problem even more, it appears to make everything an illusion.

No one knows. Current predictive models break down. I think QM shows some interesting hints. Entanglement operates instantly across any distance, could this give a clue to a process that seemingly disregards the concepts of space and time. If everything is an illusion it makes no difference, it only makes a difference if one or more parts of everything are an illusion Smile

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

So was it there or not this singularity and what was it?you cant just make up a word "singularity" and not explain it logically.

Yeah, I made the singularity up. :brickwall:

xris wrote:

Im saying it did not exist ,its others who make this claim.So the net amount of energy is not that much it can be easily contained,when you make a quick calculation of all the mass and convert that into energy its no small amount.

Yes, but when you add attractive potential fields to that it decreases, and when you add repulsive potential fields it increases. So who knows what the net amount of energy in the universe is... It may well be zero.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Yeah, I made the singularity up. :brickwall:

Yes, but when you add attractive potential fields to that it decreases, and when you add repulsive potential fields it increases. So who knows what the net amount of energy in the universe is... It may well be zero.

Who said you made it up?:perplexed:
Well i do believe many will disagree with on the point that there is zero energy in the universe, what does this attractive force look like?:sarcastic:.So how did your zero energy become the force that it did?This is not a confrontational debate mate but if that's what you want, so be it.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Well i do believe many will disagree with on the point that there is zero energy in the universe

I said perhaps the net energy is zero.

1 Reply

@validity,

validity wrote:

I said perhaps the net energy is zero.

Sorry but this is new to me what is net energy.Are you saying we had zero energy and it became some how energy? I can understand positive and negative but never in this example.It still does not explain how it became what we see from what it was, it still needs a trigger mechanism.Can you understand what i am inferring whatever was and then was something else, how did it emerge at that moment if you either consider eternal or not.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Who said you made it up?:perplexed:

You did...

xris wrote:

you cant just make up a word "singularity" and not explain it logically.

xris wrote:

Well i do believe many will disagree with on the point that there is zero energy in the universe, what does this attractive force look like?:sarcastic:.So how did your zero energy become the force that it did?This is not a confrontational debate mate but if that's what you want, so be it.

Is that a threat? I merely agreed with the possibility that the total amount of energy in the Universe may be zero. How is that confrontational?

If I begin with zero energy in region L < x < L , and I go to having +E > 0 in region L < x < 0 and -E < 0 in region 0 < x < L, how much energy have I gained? Zero. How much energy do I have in all? Zero. That's not confrontational... that's just arithmetic.

In the case of, say, a negative charge, there may be a net positive amount of energy in the particle and a net negative amount of energy in its field which, while locally small, is infinite in extent. The two might cancel. They might not. The correct gauge might be that negative energy doesn't exist. It might be that it does. Who knows?

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

You did...

Is that a threat? I merely agreed with the possibility that the total amount of energy in the Universe may be zero. How is that confrontational?

If I begin with zero energy in region L < x < L , and I go to having +E > 0 in region L < x < 0 and -E < 0 in region 0 < x < L, how much energy have I gained? Zero. How much energy do I have in all? Zero. That's not confrontational... that's just arithmetic.

In the case of, say, a negative charge, there may be a net positive amount of energy in the particle and a net negative amount of energy in its field which, while locally small, is infinite in extent. The two might cancel. They might not. The correct gauge might be that negative energy doesn't exist. It might be that it does. Who knows?

The head banger mate thats what stirred my attention, an unnecessary resort to an animated figure.Do you honestly believe i imagined you had been the original source of the term the "singularity"??
If you believe that its possible the singularity was a balance of zero energy or a balance of enourmous energy it still craves the question how and for how long.Was it forever and what stimulated the inbalance?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

The head banger mate thats what stirred my attention, an unnecessary resort to an animated figure.Do you honestly believe i imagined you had been the original source of the term the "singularity"??

Ah... Then perhaps your language was unclear. In all honesty, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you thought I'd made it up. As for provision of its logic, what in my description or any other (since you must have read some, knowing that I did not make it up) have you found wanting? Like I said, causality and chronology are not necessarily concepts that apply.

xris wrote:

If you believe that its possible the singularity was a balance of zero energy or a balance of enourmous energy it still craves the question how and for how long.Was it forever and what stimulated the inbalance?

The standard view is that time was created by or with the big bang - in this view, your question makes no sense. The view is consistent with general relativity, the foundation theory of cosmology.

The imbalance as per my and validity's example, is only local - there is no net imbalance. This isn't a standard view, it's simply a possible one. Whatever the nature of this imbalance would have to be tied to both the fundamental interactions and whatever ensures that particles have opposite signed energy to their fields. I can't give you a mechanics of the big bang - no-one can - I'm simply pointing out that you can't make assumptions about the singularity drawn from physical laws.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Ah... Then perhaps your language was unclear. In all honesty, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you thought I'd made it up. As for provision of its logic, what in my description or any other (since you must have read some, knowing that I did not make it up) have you found wanting? Like I said, causality and chronology are not necessarily concepts that apply.

The standard view is that time was created by or with the big bang - in this view, your question makes no sense. The view is consistent with general relativity, the foundation theory of cosmology.

The imbalance as per my and validity's example, is only local - there is no net imbalance. This isn't a standard view, it's simply a possible one. Whatever the nature of this imbalance would have to be tied to both the fundamental interactions and whatever ensures that particles have opposite signed energy to their fields. I can't give you a mechanics of the big bang - no-one can - I'm simply pointing out that you can't make assumptions about the singularity drawn from physical laws.

Again i ask you why does my question not make sense, i know time was created by the BB but YOU are inferring it was not by your constant universe theory, not I.This imbalance was local, local to what for goodness sake, opposite signed energy, is this science or gobbledygook."No one can give you the mechanics of the BB "... but you just tried to in some strange way.
I admire your ability to try and be scientific and your juvenile sense of sarcasm is second to none but lets not go all Monty Python all at one time, please..
Im not asking for your view of the BB or your obvious intention to be as sarcastic and as obnoxious as you are, if you dont like the debate dont include yourself.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Again i ask you why does my question not make sense, i know time was created by the BB but YOU are inferring it was not by your constant universe theory, not I.

The theory in which I said the universe could be finitely aged but in an infinitely long causal chain? How so?

xris wrote:

This imbalance was local, local to what for goodness sake, opposite signed energy, is this science or gobbledygook."No one can give you the mechanics of the BB "... but you just tried to in some strange way.

As I said, I merely tried to illustrate how familiar concepts may break down at the singularity. By local energy, I mean in the space created by the big bang - i.e. after it. We don't know how much energy there exists in the universe, and even if we did there is still something called the choice of gauge. This comes from the fact that only differences in energy are observed, giving us some freedom as to where to place zero energy. We tend to base this gauge on the energy of a photon - a high energy photon may create a massive particle such as an electron. This particle has rest mass energy. However when we put the particle in a field, its energy decreases or increases even if it isn't accelerated. For instance, the hydrogen atom has less mass energy than that of a proton and electron separately, despite the fact that the kinetic energies of these particles should add to the mass of the hydrogen. This is why we treat the negative electric potential field as having negative energy.

Another example is in solutions to the Dirac equation where antimatter particles have rest mass energy of opposite sign to its matter equivilent (e.g. if you treat the electron as having positive rest mass, the positron has negative rest mass).

In short, using such a gauge consistently, if you add up all of the energy in the universe, who knows what you'll find. It could be zero. Probably isn't, but you can't necessarily think of the singularity as containing a huge amount of energy - it is its energy density that is huge if that energy is non-zero.

xris wrote:

your juvenile sense of sarcasm is second to none

My thanks. Compliments to you, too, on your ability to fly off the handle on the least cause. Most impressive.

xris wrote:

Im not asking for your view of the BB or your obvious intention to be as sarcastic and as obnoxious as you are, if you dont like the debate dont include yourself.

Fair enough. Au revoir.

0 Replies

Was the BB created

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know