Big bang cosmology

... how do you go about forming a singularity? Or how does one go about wrapping the mind around the idea of nothing. The best I can do, is to say that it was possibly a tiny particle that inflated out of control. Though even that has problems, like where did the tiny particle come from? Perhaps it always was? What if all particles have the potential to do so?

The reason I ask is that I am thinking of something here that might solve this mystery.

when matter reaches the speed of light, it becomes energy right? Or does it just need infinite energy to keep going? How does that work again?

Im not talking about a black hole or an area of space, imagine the whole of the universe concentrated in one mass of pure energy. Before the bb expanded it was invisible due to its having such a strong gravitation pull, nothing could escape. Not time, nor space, so if it could not be seen, I will therefor ask again, was is nothing, something or an illusion. In that illusion there was only a potential for everything, it could never be said it existed forever because forever, did not exist, because you need something for it to exist and it denied itself...

There is always endless speculation about questions such as this, as exampled in the above few posts.

From a Kantian perspective, the demand (if we are to avoid simply 'idle' speculation in return for speculation that actually provides something more), is for a priori judgments grounded upon pure reason. There is no instrument aside from pure reason that is available to us when asking the ultimate questions. And it's the instrument of speculative philosophers, or metaphysicians. I'm an amateur metaphysician. But I understand Kant, and that's something. What did he demand in this regard from metaphysicians? 'Synthetic cognitions a priori.' This means judgments or principles that are a priori, and objectively valid ... as opposed to abritrary. This possibility alone is what is worthwhile for it provides a means of avoiding the otherwise justificable criticisms from the opponents of idle metaphysical speculation. Kant was himself opposed to the metaphysics of his day for he saw in it the same kind of idle (useless) speculation that it inspires today. Thus he wrote his critical philosophy to attempt to put an end to all the speculation and show the way towards something more beneficial: A pure philosophical understanding grounded upon universal, objectively valid, a priori judgments. Now, where is there such a philosophy? If you don't have it, or don't have the clues to where it is, then all I can say is that metaphysics does not exist, and all that pretends to assert itself in this regard, is nothing more than a lot of hot air.

---------- Post added 10-09-2009 at 11:07 PM ----------

There is no evidence that the big bang came from nothing. There is every reason to believe that something existed prior to the universe simply because there must have been something from which the universe could have come. We just don't know what that something was, and if it was previous universes, then we must ask from where they came and fall into an infinite regression from which the only escape is that somewhere back along the generations of universes the must have arisen one universe from no other source than timeless being, the ground-state of existence.

Samm

I think so, I am making assumptions that the singularity before it became visible, it actually existed. IF it existed, it, I assume, must have been invisible. This invisibility, is it just invisibility?because of its mass, it stopped time , light and space escaping,it therefor could be said from a certain perspective, not to exist. How else can you assume something exists. There was no space, no time, no evidence of its existence, even if it had potential to exist. We have a problem imagining nothing and this emphasizes the problem we all have.

I have difficulty understanding your point of view, is it we should not speculate or we should only speculate if your peers feel you have adequate knowledge of the subject? Universal, objectivity valid, priori judgements, im sorry , i dont want to be rude but these are all a bit mute, whats priori?

Can someone better define a singularity? Am I right that it is matter with infinite mass and no volume or almost no volume?

From all that I've read (Hawking/Gribbins et. al.) a singularity is: A zero spacetime with infinite density.

There is no space or time but there is infinite density. It's a paradox because how can an infinite density be contained in a non-state of zero spacetime?

From all that I've read (Hawking/Gribbins et. al.) a singularity is: A zero spacetime with infinite density.

There is no space or time but there is infinite density. It's a paradox because how can an infinite density be contained in a non-state of zero spacetime?

It's the unity from which all things arose and the unity to which all things must collapse, if the universe were ever again to collapse. I don't think it will collapse again (assuming without any possible concrete proof that it has collapsed before and arose before).

i think infinity can work both ways-outward and inward.
i would make the point that the process might be ongoing, in other words from zero point to the current condition (or the limits of the current condition, whatever they might be) and back again, as in the process of breathing-inward and outward movement, if not perpetuated by some catalyst at each end of the spectrum, /QUOTE]

This is the way I have it in my 'causal argument' but the catalyst is explained by the 'Causal Principle' which is the first of four a priori principles that explain the whole process. It's an answer to Immanuel Kant's challenge for speculative philosophers to present a science of metaphysics. The challenge once I present it on this forum will be for forum members to argue whether or not it does indeed answer Kant's challenge. I say it does because the principles are derived from pure reason, and they fit Kant's definition of 'a priori' -although even this can be debated. Look for the thread once I get it going -it will have some reference to the 'causal argument for the existence of a Supreme Being.'

Firstly, I did not label it the Source. Someone else here introduced that term. I only use it in response to them and, after all, that IS what it is, a source from which the universe comes. But now, if you don't like my reasoning in developing the idea of this existence from which the universe came, please tell me which of these general steps in that development you find to be unacceptable propositions (or outright false statements).

(1) The universe is not eternal and in fact had a specific beginning.

(2) Time and space began with the universe according to big bang theory.

(3) Something (the space-time universe) cannot come from nothing.

(4) Therefore, something had to have existed before the universe, AND

(5) The universe came from that something.

If you will address my proposition instead of talking about Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, maybe we can do some philosophy.

Samm

Shostakovich;88204 wrote:

Who here subscribes to the big bang theory for the origin of the universe?
I do subscribe to it for various reasons.
I won't expound.

Why do you?

Why do you not?

It makes sense and is widely accepted.

The something from which our universe came did not "come from" anything. Only space-time entities "come from." As you say in question number 2, "the rules of causality only make sense in a world of time and space." I agree. Outside of time, nothing is caused and nothing ages or changes in any way. Nothing ever becomes. Nothing ever ceases. Nothing ever changes. Something either exists or it doesn't exist. (I call it boolean existence.)

In another site, we decided that the something would have an intelligence, and I might make an argument for intelligence of a sort over in the religion section, but I won't push my luck over here with you philosopher types. :surrender: You're a lean and hungry lot.

Tell me this prothero. Is your point of view that the universe does NOT require any further explanation of its existence than the big bang? Do you believe that the universe can materialize out of nothing?
Samm

1-why do you think the universe is not eternal and had a specific beginning? i will say i think you can be right but what is the reason you think this?

2-i agree that time and space are within the universe...but if the big bang was when the universe began, there would have been nothing there to bang if the universe did not already exist...if in fact the big bang is only one of a series of bangs it would make sense, of course leaving a gap in where the universe that is still banging came from or when was the first BB

3-no comment on this one-i would call this a given

4/5-something had to exist before the universe why? before is a time concept.
could the universe not be the same something from which it was created? could it not be self created?

if outside of time nothing ever changes or ceases or becomes...but there is this Something: how could it cause any action that would be involved in creating or forming space/time?
this is that thing i was looking for the last time around...never really got a satisfactory answer from it.