The True Origin of The Universe?

[humbleteleskop]

You have been given the evidence supporting the BB.
Perhaps you should also know, that the BB was a derisive term applied by Fred Hoyle, that stuck.
In other words there was no explosion in the accepted sense. All there was, was an evolution of space and time.

That's terribly vague. You are not addressing what I said. You need to quote each of my sentences you wish to respond to and directly address the statement within it, so we can make sure we are talking about the same thing.

The rest of your post, as well as part of what I have copied, is rather confusing to say the least.

Each sentence is short and right down to point, using simple vocabulary. It's a bunch of statements, what is there to not understand? Please pick at least one sentence and point out what do you find confusing about it, then I will rephrase and make it more fitting to your own terms and understanding.

 

[paddoboy]

That's terribly vague. You are not addressing what I said. You need to quote each of my sentences you wish to respond to and directly address the statement within it, so we can make sure we are talking about the same thing.
.

I'm addressing the apparent gist of your post. That is, you are disputing the BB.
The BB was an evolution of space and time from a hot, dense state confined within the volume of an atomic nucleus, 13.83 billion years ago.
It was not an explosion of matter-mass. That evolved later.
We know nothing about the time frame between t=0 and t=10-43 seconds after the event.
After that, things get clearer and align with logical predictions of physics, particle zoo and GR, although the closer to t=10-43 seconds we are, the less positive we are as to exact details.
Are you able to invalidate any of the four main pillars supporting the BB?
Do you have another model, that at least supports the same four pillars?

The BB was not just pulled out of someone's backside. It had some stiff competition, only going back to the fifties.
It arose from mediocrity to the overwhelming supported model we have today, for very simple reasons.
It matched correctly the further observations and experiments that were evident.
Simple as that.

 

[humbleteleskop]

We know nothing about the time frame between t=0 and t=10-43 seconds after the event.

What reason do you have to believe there is no time before t=0?

What reason do you have to believe BB is not just a part of "bigger" universe?

How do you define all the logical space where BB has not expanded yet, it doesn't exist?

 

[Aqueous Id]

What reason do you have to believe there is no time before t=0?

Because there is no such thing as "before" when the clock is not ticking.

What reason do you have to believe BB is not just a part of "bigger" universe?

The Big Bang isn't an explanation about what caused it to occur, nor anything else about other universes. It just explains inflation. And the genesis of reality as we know it.

How do you define all the logical space where BB has not expanded yet, it doesn't exist?

There is no space beyond the space created in the BB (including the space currently being inflated). To say there is space beyond the universe is sheer speculation, without merit. It's certainly possible, but there's no reason to say one way or the other.

 

[paddoboy]

What reason do you have to believe there is no time before t=0?

What reason do you have to believe BB is not just a part of "bigger" universe?

How do you define all the logical space where BB has not expanded yet, it doesn't exist?

Simply because as of this time, we have no observational or experimental data to support those parameters, and also our laws of physics and GR do not apply there.

What you are doing is speculating. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Trippy]

That's absolutely true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end, isn't that the truth? The answer is no. Those are all evidence only for some explosion. But there is no any reason to call that explosion "universe", or to say it created time and that there is nothing beyond it. It's naive and illogical to pose such artificial constraints, akin to medieval belief that the Earth has an edge, completely unnecessary assumptions. There is no any evidence to believe the Big Bang is not just one of infinitely many little puffs going on in an infinite "that which contains everything" - the master universe.

Bend the words, and you will bend the reality. "Universe" should never change its definition, it should always mean "master universe", it's supposed to be infinite and eternal. It's not really supposed to describe reality in materialistic terms, but logical, as an abstract and absolute reference grid within which practical and relative definitions can exist. By bending this reference grid into practical definition we lose the anchor to logic, and without it we get circular reasoning and self-referencing contradiction, a cause which is an effect of itself, an egg that laid a chicken which grew up to be the egg it originally came from, i.e. "Big Bang".

If you want to puch the electric universe, talk it to alternative theories or pseudoscience.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Because there is no such thing as "before" when the clock is not ticking.

Why do you say the clock is not ticking before t=0? What's the difference, how do you know?

The Big Bang isn't an explanation about what caused it to occur, nor anything else about other universes. It just explains inflation. And the genesis of reality as we know it.

Why would you call inflation of space "universe"? Why wouldn't you call "universe" that which contains the inflation and everything else we can't see?

There is no space beyond the space created in the BB (including the space currently being inflated).

What is the difference between non existing space beyond BB, and existing vacuum within BB bubble?

To say there is space beyond the universe is sheer speculation, without merit. It's certainly possible, but there's no reason to say one way or the other.

Depends on your definition of words and consistency of logic. If you understand "space" as logical rather than practical construct, you don't end up in a circular self-contradicting semantic like that. In other words, that space exist beyond BB is not practical possibility, but logical certainty, it is there by definition.

We should not be talking about whether "space" exist beyond BB, but matter, i.e. whether it is a pure vacuum or not. That makes sense, but talking about existence of abstract terms like "space" is a non-sense. Space must exist because it is a concept, a pure logical construct, and such abstracts should never be confused with material properties or practical reality.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Why do you say the clock is not ticking before t=0? What's the difference, how do you know?




Why would you call inflation of space "universe"? Why wouldn't you call "universe" that which contains the inflation and everything else we can't see?




What is the difference between non existing space beyond BB, and existing vacuum within BB bubble?




Depends on your definition of words and consistency of logic. If you understand "space" as logical rather than practical construct, you don't end up in a circular self-contradicting semantic like that. In other words, that space exist beyond BB is not practical possibility, but logical certainty, it is there by definition.

We should not be talking about whether "space" exist beyond BB, but matter, i.e. whether it is a pure vacuum or not. That makes sense, but talking about existence of abstract terms like "space" is a non-sense. Space must exist because it is a concept, a pure logical construct, and such abstracts should never be confused with material properties or practical reality.

In Big Bang Theory, time and space are created, not only matter. IOW there is no time or space "before". There can be no "before". There can be no space beyond the universe since the universe is defined as (in part) all space created in the inflation. Like I say, there can be nothing else, at least not based on anything more than wild speculation. Either that or you reject the Big Bang, but that would be nutty. That leaves all of this as pure speculation, like imaging what the tooth fairy might look like. :toothless smiley:

 

[humbleteleskop]

If you want to puch the electric universe, talk it to alternative theories or pseudoscience.

I was talking about WORDS and semantics, about logic and the way meanings of those words and the consistency of their definitions impact our understanding about reality.

Electric universe?!? What sentence exactly made you think I was talking about anything else but that which I was specifically talking about?

 

[paddoboy]

Why do you say the clock is not ticking before t=0? What's the difference, how do you know?

t=0 infers zero time.

Why would you call inflation of space "universe"? Why wouldn't you call "universe" that which contains the inflation and everything else we can't see?

Space and time are what evolved from the BB. The Universe at it's most basic structure, is spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What is the difference between non existing space beyond BB, and existing vacuum within BB bubble?

Space was created at the BB. It did not exist before the BB.
In essence what that means, is that the BB happened everywhere at the same time, since everywhere [all of spacetime] was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus.

Depends on your definition of words and consistency of logic. If you understand "space" as logical rather than practical construct, you don't end up in a circular self-contradicting semantic like that. In other words, that space exist beyond BB is not practical possibility, but logical certainty, it is there by definition.

You are confusing what our models tell us, and the parameters in which they exist.
According to those models, nothing existed outside, although I prefer, nothing that we are able to understand.
Outside of those spheres is what we speculate on.

We should not be talking about whether "space" exist beyond BB, but matter, i.e. whether it is a pure vacuum or not. That makes sense, but talking about existence of abstract terms like "space" is a non-sense. Space must exist because it is a concept, a pure logical construct, and such abstracts should never be confused with material properties or practical reality.

We don't know all there is to know just yet.
Irrespective the evidence for the BB evolving all of space and time is overwhelmingly quite convincing.
The other great thing going for the BB, is how it fits in so logically, without any contradiction, with our other near certain models of reality, like our Particle zoo, SR, GR, Abiogenesis and Evolution.

 

[Trippy]

I was talking about WORDS and semantics, about logic and the way meanings of those words and the consistency of their definitions impact our understanding about reality.

Electric universe?!? What sentence exactly made you think I was talking about anything else but that which I was specifically talking about?

The interpretation of the big bang as an explosion rather than the modern interpretation is one of the tennants of plasma cosmology/electric universe.

They proposed to account for the CMBR (among other things) by proposing that there was a massive explosion involving ambiplasma and that the CMBR is a relic of that explosion.

 

[Trippy]

t=0 infers zero time.

Right, but if you interpret the evidence for the big bang as being evidence for an actual explosion in an existing space time, then t=0 is the time of the explosion, t<0 is the time before the explosion and t>0 is the time since the explosion.

 

[AlexG]

I was talking about WORDS and semantics, about logic and the way meanings of those words and the consistency of their definitions impact our understanding about reality.

Then you're not talking about science, and should probably find a different thread.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Right, but if you interpret the evidence for the big bang as being evidence for an actual explosion in an existing space time, then t=0 is the time of the explosion, t<0 is the time before the explosion and t>0 is the time since the explosion.

Exactly, it's just arbitrary choice of reference frame. Instead of saying the time began with the Big Bang, we should simply say the Big Bang occurred at some point in time, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

 

[Trippy]

Exactly, it's just arbitrary choice of reference frame. Instead of saying the time began with the Big Bang, we should simply say the Big Bang occurred at some point in time, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

The problem with that is that it's not just an arbitrary choice of reference frame. Relativity makes different predictions from the electric universe hypothesis.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Aqueous. Since I had to log in again for another matter, I will take the opportunity to bring you up to date about that old excuse for not answering the question: "What came before the BBang".

In Big Bang Theory, time and space are created, not only matter. IOW there is no time or space "before". There can be no "before". There can be no space beyond the universe since the universe is defined as (in part) all space created in the inflation. Like I say, there can be nothing else, at least not based on anything more than wild speculation. Either that or you reject the Big Bang, but that would be nutty. That leaves all of this as pure speculation, like imaging what the tooth fairy might look like. :toothless smiley:

Sir Roger Penrose and other mainstream physicists have now dropped their old 'evasion' cop-out response, to the effect of: "Before implies time, and BBang hypothesizes time began with BBang, so the question of 'before' is meaningless".

Sir Roger and others have now admitted that was a cop-out answer. They are now contemplating and researching and trying to answer that "What came before" question, because it is a valid question which no amount of hypothesizing a 'BBang hypothesized backward limit' to universal process can ever make "meaningless" as a question in logic and physical process terms, irrespective of BBang 'time beginnings' hypotheses.

Anyhow, have to go. Just thought you might appreciate being made aware that even some of those who originally helped conceive/construct the BBang hypothesis/model are now themselves admitting/rethinking upon that very question of "What came before", because they now allow that it is a perfectly reasonable and valid one, irrespective of theories so far. Cheers!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

How hard is it to understand that Reality is Reality, and will remain Reality, regardless of any "abstract" Model, Construct or Representation that is presented in attempting to explain that Reality.

The Reality of the Universe is, and always will be the Reality of the Universe.
The Reality of the Universe can not, does not, and will never change simply because a new or different "abstraction" supplants a previous one, or is supplanted by a newer better more widely accepted "abstraction".

The Real Universe is not an "abstract", it is Reality!

Albert Einstein knew that!
Carl Sagan knew that!
Neil deGrasse Tyson knows that!

When Reality is being discussed, reified abstractions should not be presented at all, let alone be presented as Fact!

The Reality is this : The conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are now, will remain as they are now, regardless of any "Abstraction" - be it Myth, Fairy Tale, Scientific Theory, Dream, Alternative Theory, Creation, Intelligent Design...etc. - that is presented or accepted or argued or dismissed in attempting to explain the True Origin of the Universe.

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Aqueous. Since I had to log in again for another matter, I will take the opportunity to bring you up to date about that old excuse for not answering the question: "What came before the BBang".



Sir Roger Penrose and other mainstream physicists have now dropped their old 'evasion' cop-out response, to the effect of: "Before implies time, and BBang hypothesizes time began with BBang, so the question of 'before' is meaningless".

Until we have a valid observable ToE or QGT, it will always remain speculation, and I have never seen anyone question any speculative scenario that aligns with the known laws of physics and GR.
It can remain a possibility...but a speculative possibility.
With regards to the BB model, THERE IS NO BEFORE TO DESCRIBE.
But any potential QGT or ToE, will almost certainly encompass the present BB model.

Anyhow, have to go. Just thought you might appreciate being made aware that even some of those who originally helped conceive/construct the BBang hypothesis/model are now themselves admitting/rethinking upon that very question of "What came before", because they now allow that it is a perfectly reasonable and valid one, irrespective of theories so far. Cheers!

All repuatble cosmologists and physicists speculate about before. And is the reason why this little old lay person always uses the phrase of "nothing before the BB, that we know of, or can be aware of, or that we understand"
That has never been questioned in mainstream scientific circles.

Sir Roger and others have now admitted that was a cop-out answer.

Not sure if I accept that, due to the facts that I have mentioned. Roger has been known to discuss the "before of the BB possibilities" as have most cosmologists/physicists.

I fail to see any problem or revelation in that at all. :shrug:

 

[paddoboy]

How hard is it to understand that Reality is Reality, and will remain Reality, regardless of any "abstract" Model, Construct or Representation that is presented in attempting to explain that Reality.

The Reality of the Universe is, and always will be the Reality of the Universe.
The Reality of the Universe can not, does not, and will never change simply because a new or different "abstraction" supplants a previous one, or is supplanted by a newer better more widely accepted "abstraction".

The Real Universe is not an "abstract", it is Reality!

Albert Einstein knew that!
Carl Sagan knew that!
Neil deGrasse Tyson knows that!

.

Totally in agreement!
The Universe is at its most basic structure is just spacetime, and that is what the BB says.
No problems, and nice to see.

 

[Trippy]

When Reality is being discussed, reified abstractions should not be presented at all, let alone be presented as Fact!

The Reality is this : The conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are now, will remain as they are now, regardless of any "Abstraction" - be it Myth, Fairy Tale, Scientific Theory, Dream, Alternative Theory, Creation, Intelligent Design...etc. - that is presented or accepted or argued or dismissed in attempting to explain the True Origin of the Universe.

On the one hand, you assertion is true if we take a very narrow, very specific, very shallow interpretation of your words. On the other hand, I disagree, and you haven't addressed the counter point(s) that I made:

The big bang hypothesis, as supported purely by relativity, predicts that the universe has a finitie beginning and that discussing 'before' the big bang is meaningless.
Plasma Cosmology/EU predicts that the evidence we see that appears to support the big bang hypothesis are actually relics of a giant explosion, and the universe is actually infinitie in time and space.
The big squeeze hypothesis predicts that rather than collapsing to a singularity, the universe is squeezed to a state that resembles a singularity but isn't. Discussing 'before the big bang' is no longer meaningless.
The brane collision hypothesis posits that we are on/in a brane that periodicly collides with another brane and the energy of the collision gives the apperance of a big bang.
The divine hand of a benevolent creator posists that there exists some form of divine being who created the universe because they were bored and needed some entertainment. It posits that this being entertains itself by curing people with cancer, making statues bleed, putting strange lights in the sky, making people hallucinate, causing its image or the symbology we associate with it to appear on foodstuffs, and causing other forms of supernatural mischeif that can not be readily explained (by definition) by natural science.

All of these describe realities that, while they may have some properties in common, differ profoundly. I don't understand how any-one could assert that they are the same.