Is the big bang fact or fiction

[Kelli May]

The most important question might be "Why are you discussing it here, and not in some kind of cosmological forum?". While there are undoubtedly some intelligent people and original thinkers among SL residents, few of us have the background and training it would take to judge your ideas.

In scientific terms, you haven't presented a theory (a peer-reviewed body of thinking backed by reproducible evidence), but a series of linked concepts - a theory only in the looser, philosophical sense. A scientific theory must make predictions which can then be repeatedly tested by experiment.

To answer your question: no, I can't disprove it. I have a theory there is a green dragon on Mercury who only exists on Tuesdays and breathes watermelon soda. Can you disprove it?

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

leon Bowler wrote:

The big bang was put together after some noticed a red shift in distant stars, to say it was caused by things moving away from us at ridiculous speeds is a bit of a fantasy.

Here is another explanation of red shift.

Red shift =  the changing wave length of light as it passes though space fill with cold plasma(dark matter) that is changing in pressure due to a standing pressure wave that resonates within the universe proving that light is a wave and not a particle and that the big bang is wrong.

That space is in fact filled with cold plasma, it is under pressure and that matter is the condensation of that cold plasma, also that this cold plasma is a conductor thus making an electro mechanical universe that drives the motion of the planets and stars.

Also that things like electrons orbiting a nucleus is a fantasy, that all condensed balls of plasma vibrate and that peaks and troughs are formed on the surface, a peak is what people call an electron, as the ball is heated so those peaks get higher and the tip breaks of creating a free electron.

An element is just a ball that is vibrating at a harmonic relative to its radius, the peaks and troughs idea now allows bonds and on how the bonds are formed according to its radius, so makes the idea of electrons spinning around a nucleus wrong.

I think the above theory explains every thing that is observed and is the ultimate unification theory.

Do you agree with the above?

Can you disprove it?

---

Well, as others have said, a few lines of text here on what is supposed to be an alternative to the Big Bang Theory and then “can you disprove it” is not the way to go. Please at least quote the abstract of your theory if you don’t wish to post a link to the full paper. Has it been published in a peer reviewed journal? Have you discussed this on the Physics Forum and if so, where?

Alternative theories on redshift abound. This is the abstract of Ari Brynjolfsson paper titled Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma.

A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics. When photons penetrate a cold and dense plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But in sparse hot plasma, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift. The energy loss per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon's energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron. In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating. Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma. Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the redshifts of the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding. The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons' classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons. This means that there is no need for Einstein's Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting.

If you have a paper on your theory, would make sense to at least paste the abstract here. Kelli has a point though, this really isn’t the place, the Physics Forum would be more appropriate.

How does your theory explain the CMB by the way?

As a final note, I’m rather dismayed over your dismissive comment on being unable to have a meaningful chat with Stephen Hawking. Yes, he pre-records speeches. What else do you expect him to do? His ‘speaking’ is limited to four words a minute using his using his cheek muscle, optical sensor and computer and unfortunately now it’s down to one word per minute due to a deterioration in the cheek muscle. A new voice method using his brainwaves is now being examined.

[VRprofessor]

---

Kelli May wrote:

The most important question might be "Why are you discussing it here, and not in some kind of cosmological forum?". While there are undoubtedly some intelligent people and original thinkers among SL residents, few of us have the background and training it would take to judge your ideas.

In scientific terms, you haven't presented a theory (a peer-reviewed body of thinking backed by reproducible evidence), but a series of linked concepts - a theory only in the looser, philosophical sense. A scientific theory must make predictions which can then be repeatedly tested by experiment.

To answer your question: no, I can't disprove it. I have a theory there is a green dragon on Mercury who only exists on Tuesdays and breathes watermelon soda. Can you disprove it?

---

 

 Kelli's dragon example should make it clear why the onus is on the hypothesis proposer to provide supporting evidence for the credibility of their claim and not the rest of the world to disprove the hypothesis no matter how incorrect it can be.  Any other approach means that anyone with an imagination can create "theories" that are non-falsifiable and we would be quickly over run with nonsense as truth.

I appologize for not noting the name, but I think is was Madeline that provided an extensive physics discussion explaining why senior academics are unlikely to pay any attention to the OPs hypothesis.  It is nice that she took to the time to explain.

As for why here and not on a cosmology forum? One of the signs of bad science is that it is sold outside of the relevent scientific community.  When you have bad science that you cannot or will not put aside (and humans are bad at giving up on an idea once it creeps into their brains) you go outside the scientific community for support.  Anyone remember the infinite energy car on the Tonight show (with Johnny Carson)?    Cold fusion by -- I forget their names--but they went straight to the media. 

If the scientific community won't accept your ideas, maybe you can sell them directly to the public. 

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

VRprofessor wrote:

 Kelli's dragon example should make it clear why the onus is on the hypothesis proposer to provide supporting evidence for the credibility of their claim and not the rest of the world to disprove the hypothesis no matter how incorrect it can be.  Any other approach means that anyone with an imagination can create "theories" that are non-falsifiable and we would be quickly over run with nonsense as truth.

I appologize for not noting the name, but I think is was Madeline that provided an extensive physics discussion explaining why senior academics are unlikely to pay any attention to the OPs hypothesis.  It is nice that she took to the time to explain.

As for why here and not on a cosmology forum? One of the signs of bad science is that it is sold outside of the relevent scientific community.  When you have bad science that you cannot or will not put aside (and humans are bad at giving up on an idea once it creeps into their brains) you go outside the scientific community for support.  Anyone remember the infinite energy car on the Tonight show (with Johnny Carson)?    Cold fusion by -- I forget their names--but they went straight to the media. 

If the scientific community won't accept your ideas, maybe you can sell them directly to the public. 

---

Very true. I was asked to review a book by one such person who had failed to have his creation theories peer reviewed so took the self-publishing route. I have to give the person credit for his determination and presentation but with little or no scientific basis for his theories, we declined to review.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

leon Bowler wrote:

I think the main reason the theory was not excepted as it gives no role to god, whereas the big bang does and if you look at the direction it is going they will soon declare that god started the big bang, I can only guess as senior academics would not even listen, or read any papers.

---

Interesting assessment. It's true that in western society brought up on the classic Genisis creation, steady state theories are never going to prove popular. However, although more palatable, the Big Bang does not gel with the biblical account in Genisis either and in fact, steady state theorists such as Fred Hoyle delighted in this fact.

[Ceka Cianci]

i think it went something like this..

here we are folks at the universal stadium where tonight two gods of chaos are gonna end this matter ;P

 

 

oops..who would have guessed they would end up creating more.DOH!!!!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

<snip>

 

Alternative theories on redshift abound. This is the abstract of Ari Brynjolfsson paper titled Redshift of photons penetrating a

hot

plasma.

<snip>

How does your theory explain the CMB by the way?

As a final note, I’m rather dismayed over your dismissive comment on being unable to have a meaningful chat with Stephen Hawking. Yes, he pre-records speeches. What else do you expect him to do? His ‘speaking’ is limited to four words a minute using his using his cheek muscle, optical sensor and computer and unfortunately now it’s down to one word per minute due to a deterioration in the cheek muscle. A new voice method using his brainwaves is now being examined.

---

Nyll, your CMB reference is apropo. Plasma cosmologies like Brynjolfsson's have been around for some time and increasingly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background by instruments like COBE aren't giving them any help.

I suppose I was so eager to refute the dismissal of doppler redshift and "not a particle" ideas that I forgot leon's comment about Hawking. Many people have been able to have meaningful chats him, apparently finding the benefit of a chat with Dr. Hawking worth the effort. I wonder if the same can be said about me!

[Maelstrom Janus]

 

[Alicia Sautereau]

I`m with Rush,

There is a structure at the center of the universe that created this place or with Men in Black 1 that we`re a giant marble for some aliens.
Can`t see something come out of nothing.

[Melita Magic]

I don't know how the universe was created. I am not a scientist. Even scientists do not and have never fully agreed on this issue. 

To me the issue is whether an intelligence was behind the creation. But that is not what you asked. Or is it?

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you for your long and detailed explanation, Madelaine. The maths is beyond me, of course, so I can't really comprehend the detail. Regardless of that, it doesn't change my view, which applies to a star that is millions or billions of light years away and not just a mere hundred light years away. I can't accept that such a star could perpetually emit sufficient particles (light), spreading outward from the star, that I can see at all points on earth - and even at all points in the universe.

I should add that I can't really see how waves in a medium could survive over such distances either. Mainly because of all the other waves interfering with it. But I like the waves idea better than the idea of the perpetual emission of sufficient particles so that, from billions of light years away, I can see the light from the star at all points on earth and in the universe.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Nyll, your CMB reference is apropo. Plasma cosmologies like Brynjolfsson's have been around for some time and increasingly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background by instruments like

COBE

aren't giving them any help.

 

Yes, I've seen Brynjolfsson's reply when questioned on the CMB, I'd like to see if leon's is somewhat similar but he seems to have left the room.

 

I suppose I was so eager to refute the dismissal of doppler redshift and "not a particle" ideas that I forgot leon's comment about Hawking. Many people have been able to have meaningful chats him, apparently finding the benefit of a chat with Dr. Hawking worth the effort. I wonder if the same can be said about me!

 

lol I'm sure it would be.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Thank you for your long and detailed explanation, Madelaine. The maths is beyond me, of course, so I can't really comprehend the detail. Regardless of that, it doesn't change my view, which applies to a star that is millions or billions of light years away and not just a mere hundred light years away. I can't accept that such a star could perpetually emit sufficient particles (light), spreading outward from the star, that I can see at all points on earth - and even at all points in the universe.

I should add that I can't really see how waves in a medium could survive over such distances either. Mainly because of all the other waves interfering with it. But I like the waves idea better than the idea of the perpetual emission of sufficient particles so that, from billions of light years away, I can see the light from the star at all points on earth and in the universe.

---

Phil, nobody can see stars from other galaxies with the naked eye. All the stars you see at night are members of our own Milky Way Galaxy. From a sufficiently dark viewing area, one can see perhaps 6,000 of the estimated 300,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way. We can see the cumulative light output of our galaxy at night, as a faint, wispy strip of light cutting across the sky. I expect you've seen it.

Even with the most powerful telescopes, we cannot resolve individual stars in distant galaxies, unless one goes supernova. During supernova explosions, stars can release as many photons as the entire galaxy they inhabit. I had the pleasure of seeing a supernova (SN1998A) in my backyard telescope in early 1998. I was barely able to spot the galaxy in my eyepiece, but did get a photograph using a sensitive home-made CCD camera (thousands of people built the "Cookbook Camera" in the mid 90's).

I'll do a bit more math to show how it is we can "see" such distant things as galaxies.

As you recall from my initial calculations, a fully dilated human eye accepts photons through an aperture of 30mm^2 area. That's simply too small to collect enough photons from a distant galaxy, though we can barely make out the faint light from nearby Andromeda on a clear night, as motorists sometimes do when driving in Arizona in the summer, when 911 operators are accustomed to getting calls of flying saucers on the horizon.

Our eyes also require that minimum photon rate of 5-10 every tenth of a second. Our eyes cannot continue to accumulate photons indefinitely until an image is perceived, we must see quickly to avoid predators. But we can build machines that have both larger apertures, longer measuring times and higher sensitivity (you've already seen the single photon counters, which are 10 times more sensitive than the human eye). The old Palomar telescope has a primary mirror that's 5 meters in diameter, for an aperture area of 75 million mm^2 (pi*5000*5000). That's three million times more light gathering power than the human eye.

If you mount a single photon detector on that telescope, you now have an "eye" that's 30 million times more sensitive than our own. If you turn that sensor on and measure the same spot in the sky for three hours (this is routinely done, Hubble can stare at the same spot for days), you can collect 10,000 times more photons than the human eye does in the 10th of a second I used in my previous calculations.

So, we are able to build machines that are 300 billion times more sensitive than the human eye (3 million x 10 x 10,000). Light intensity falls off as the square of your distance from the light source, so that increased sensitivity is enough to allow us to see 500,000 (square root of 300 billion) times deeper into the universe. If you recall, my original calculations showed how it is that we can easily see stars that are 100 light years away. The sensor I've just described would now be capable of seeing that same star at a distance of 50 million light years (500,000 x 100).

But recall that galaxies are collections of hundreds of billions of stars. That gives us yet another factor of 300,000 (square root of 100 billion), allowing us to detect such things from as far away as 15 trillion light years (50 million x 300,000). That's larger than the known universe!

In fact we're not able to see that deeply into the universe because we need much more than one photon from a galaxy to make much sense of things, and there are sources of noise that confound our ability to discern a single photo from a distant star with one from a nearby streetlight. But I hope you can see how it is we catch photons from such distant sources.

Going back to your preference for waves (as you doubted sufficient particles could reach our eyes), remember that a wave must be also be detected by something. The physics of detection requires that an electron be popped lose from an atom so that it can conduct charge from one place to another, producing either an electrochemical response (as in our eye) or an electronic response (as in a photo counter or image sensor). Electrons cannot respond to wave energies less than their minimum transition energy. This is the "quantum" of energy that underlies quantum mechanics.

So even if light is only a wave, it must have sufficient amplitude to dislodge an electron. I think this puts you right back where you started when you doubted whether enough photons were emitted. Now you must doubt whether waves would have sufficient amplitude to be detected by the time they got here. You've already expressed that doubt, so I hope you are on your way to seeing, and believing, that astronomical numbers are indeed so large that we have a hard time grasping them, but that, when you do the math, it actually works!

As for your concern about waves interacting, they actually don't (according to classical electrodynamics). If you are standing in a spot that's receiving waves from multiple sources, it can be quite a challenge to tease them apart, but the waves themselves do not alter each other. Photons, which have no charge, also do not interact with one another. That's good because photons are simultaneously particles and waves and you'd hope they behave the same way as either. In truth, photons can spontaneously fluctuate into pairs of charged particles (quarks or leptons) which can interact with particles from another photon, but such collisions are thought to be very, very rare. There are experiments underway to see photon-photon collisions inside particle accelerators. I don't think we've observed a such a collision yet, but I might have missed the news.

My Father was amused by politicians saying that the US National Debt was approaching astronomical proportions. It currently stands at 15 trillion dollars or so. I've just gone through a series of calculations covering a range that's larger than the square of the square of the national debt and that's just the beginning.

Welcome to astronomy, Phil!

;-)

 

[Ceka Cianci]

i think the thinking of something having to be intelligent to have made everything ..that comes from having to get so smart to understand it..once we see how long it took to get an understanding..well we start to think..this had to be from something intelligent..i mean look what had to happen just to understand it sorta..

 

so in a sense it could have just happened and be something that is some living breathing thing and we feel we have to justify it being something intelligent for it to exist..because it's so perfect..at least in our minds it is perfect..when really perfect could be the opposite of perfect and stuff is really just messed up and perfect is chaos..which really chaos is perfect and organized is not..i mean organized can only lead to becoming unorganized at some point..right? so really it's all just based on a hunch that things are in order..because order is something we invented..

 

things really never fall out of place..because they are always going somewhere..they just fal out of where we want them to be..out of order..

i have to say..things are just enjoyable to learn about.but i will never admit to knowing anything for certain when it comes to the universe and beyond or within..

we don't make up a blip in it's life's radar to have a clue what we really are to this whole massive figure..

for all we know we are a virus killing off one atoms electrons just waiting to spread to the others when kabillions of years later we have evolved in ways to adapt to killing off the other planets/electrons that end up one day a yabzillion eons of eons later kills off the body that supports it all..

 

it could be possible!! hehehe

*Hubby yells from the other room* Stop drinkin so much damn tea!! you mumble when you type!!sounds like a goddam orgy goin on in there!!

 

*whispers* ok gotta go..don't try to make sense of this..because i just kind of rattled it off to see what i could come up with by not really thinking too hard when i typed it..kind of like an experiment in seeing what comes from a dice toss..

*hubby yells* I can still hear you!! WTF!!*

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i have to say..things are just enjoyable to learn about.but i will never admit to knowing anything for certain when it comes to the universe and beyond or within.. 

---

You are in wonderful company, Ceka.

Like you and Dr. Feynman, I too experience The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

I think the thinking of something having to be intelligent to have made everything ..that comes from having to get so smart to understand it..once we see how long it took to get an understanding..well we start to think..this had to be from something intelligent..i mean look what had to happen just to understand it sorta..

 so in a sense it could have just happened and be something that is some living breathing thing and we feel we have to justify it being something intelligent for it to exist..because it's so perfect..at least in our minds it is perfect..when really perfect could be the opposite of perfect and stuff is really just messed up and perfect is chaos..which really chaos is perfect and organized is not..i mean organized can only lead to becoming unorganized at some point..right? so really it's all just based on a hunch that things are in order..because order is something we invented..

   

---

Does science need a deity, an intelligence that created everything? Many would say no, we have the scientific explanations to dispel any notion of a deity. The universe runs perfectly for us using natural laws so why invoke some external being or source of power?

However, some use science to support the existence of a deity too. The universe we inhabit is so finely tuned for human life, it could be argued it was created for us. For example, even a minute change in the size of the weak force would make it impossible for hydrogen to form and that of course is necessary to fuel suns and form water. Also, the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism had a 1 in 10 to power of 40 (equation won't display) chance of being fixed in the exact ratio needed for stable suns to form. There are many other finely tuned parameters too.

So, is it pure coincicence that we live in a universe finely tuned for life where suns last long enough for planets to form that can sustain life with water in abundance or was it created especially for us? Could our universe be one of an infinite number of universes, a multiverse, so of course we end up in the universe that is finely tuned for us.

The idea of a steady state universe "The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting" is as difficult to get your head around as to what came before the 'Big Bang'. The universe has either been around forever or it began at some point in time.

Makes your head spin!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Does science need a deity, an intelligence that created everything?

Many would say no, we have the scientific explanations to dispel any notion of a deity.

---

And many would be wrong. We don't have the scientific explanations at all. The best minds on the planet have found it impossible to do away with a 'creator' and still explain how the universe/matter exists at all, including the space for it to exist in. Remember, there was absolutely nothing - no space, no matter, nothing - and then there was something. Nobody has any concept of how that could have happened other than it was arbitrarily created by someone or something. The more you ponder "How come it exists?", the more you are forced towards the idea of 'it must have been created'. The steady-state idea raises the same question - "How come?" - which leads to the same conclusion.

[Phil Deakins]

Madelaine. I have to say that I found your lengthy second reply to me to be very persuasive. Apart from the fact that the estimated number of stars in our galaxy seems to fluctuate wildly all the time - from 100 million not many years ago to the 300 million of your post - the reply was equation-free, which made it much more interesting to me, and much easier to follow. My first thought was to say that the combined starlight of galaxies is irrelevant, because we'd still see the light of a single star that is in that location, but, as I read further, I did away with that thought. Most persuasive. Thank you.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Welcome to astronomy, Phil!

;-) 

---

I've always found astronomy to be very interesting and, when I was a young man, it was a hobby that I would have liked to take up. Unfortunately, the lack of time and money prevented it. Also, there were other things to do. Now that I have the time, and money isn't a barrier, it doesn't draw me enough to get into it. I still find it very interesting but not interesting enough to invest time and money on. Apart from that, I live in a light-polluted city, so doing it wouldn't be very good where I am.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

And many would be wrong. We don't have the scientific explanations at all. The best minds on the planet have found it impossible to do away with a 'creator' and still explain how the universe/matter exists at all, including the space for it to exist in. Remember, there was absolutely nothing - no space, no matter, nothing - and then there was something. Nobody has any concept of how that could have happened other than it was arbitrarily created by someone or something. The more you ponder "How come it exists?", the more you are forced towards the idea of 'it must have been created'. The idea that it existed, reaching infinitely back in time asks the same question - "How come?" - which leads to the same conclusion.

---

I wouldn't say that. Scientist may not have all the answers but certainly have many explanations and the overwhelming evidence is for the Big Bang theory. However, it is still a theory.

To say that nobody has any concept of how there was 'nothing' and then there was 'something' is not quite correct. Although unproven, the inflationary theory offers one possible answer for example and I like this explanation.

You have a vacuum with zero energy and zero mass. Quantum mechanics however says that entities are not exactly any number, not even exactly zero. So the amount of mass fluctuates around zero, with bits and particles fleeting into existence for the briefest of moments here and there with most flipping instantly back into nothingness. However, the bit of mass (or field of energy as mass and energy are equivalent) that started our universe came attached to an inflationery field and this field has an antigravitional force (negative energy) causing it to expand at an immense rate.

So, you have a huge field of negative energy coupled with the sudden appearance of greater than zero mass but mass and energy are equivalent so when added together you still have zero total mass and energy. If you add up all the energy and mass in the universe, it may still come to zero. So the question "How did something come from nothing?" ceases to be an issue because there is no 'something'. We live in a universe exactly equivalent to the 'nothing' that came before the Big Bang.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've always found astronomy to be very interesting and, when I was a young man, it was a hobby that I would have liked to take up. Unfortunately, the lack of time and money prevented it. Also, there were other things to do. Now that I have the time, and money isn't a barrier, it doesn't draw me enough to get into it. I still find it very interesting but not interesting enough to invest time and money on. Apart from that, I live in a light-polluted city, so doing it wouldn't be very good where I am.

---

It is very interesting Phil and anyone starting off doesn't need to spend much money to get involved, although time to do so in today's busy world is another matter. A simple pair of 7 x 50 or 10 x 50 binoculars is all that's needed to start observational astronomy along with Phil Harrington's Touring the Universe through Binoculars and a star atlas such as The Cambridge Star Atlas or Bright Star Atlas. So many kids look for a telescope but all too often they can't find anything with the narrow field of view and the telescope ends up all forlorn in a cupboard or attic. I always recommend binoculars to start with.

Even from light-polluted skies you can still find many interesting things to observe, star clusters, double stars, Jupiter's moons, the Moon etc. Alternatively, drive to a darker location outside the city, take the binoculars out and you're observing in a minute. A tripod makes things steadier or if you have the money, a pair of Canon stabilised binoculars. I have a few pairs of binoculars but my favourite is the Canon 15 x 50 stabilised binoculars. Eliminates hand shake and does away with the need for a tripod. I bring the Canon binoculars with me whenever I go away and a little book The Observer's Star Atlas by E. Karkoschka. The 12 x 40 Canon stabilised binoculars are beautiful to use too and lighter.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

I wouldn't say that. Scientist may not have all the answers but certainly have many explanations and the overwhelming evidence is for the Big Bang theory. However, it is still a theory.

To say that nobody has any concept of how there was 'nothing' and then there was 'something' is not quite correct. Although unproven, the inflationary theory offers one possible answer for example and I like this explanation.

You have a vacuum with zero energy and zero mass. Quantum mechanics however says that entities are not exactly any number, not even exactly zero. So the amount of mass fluctuates around zero, with bits and particles fleeting into existence for the briefest of moments here and there with most flipping instantly back into nothingness. However, the bit of mass (or field of energy as mass and energy are equivalent) that started our universe came attached to an inflationery field and this field has an antigravitional force (negative energy) causing it to expand at an immense rate.

So, you have a huge field of negative energy coupled with the sudden appearance of greater than zero mass but mass and energy are equivalent so when added together you still have zero total mass and energy. If you add up all the energy and mass in the universe, it may still come to zero. So the question "How did something come from nothing?" ceases to be an issue because there is no 'something'. We live in a universe exactly equivalent to the 'nothing' that came before the Big Bang.

---

The problem with all of that is that it entirely misses the point. It's impossible to imagine absolute nothingness - no space, however tiny, no matter, no vacuum, no energy - nothing whatsover. The Big Bang theory requires something to bang, however tiny the something is. It also requires somewhere (dimensions) for the bang to occur in, however tiny that somewhere is. The Big Bang theory describes what may or may not have happened when something already existed. It doesn't describe anything about how that something came into being. The inflationary theory needs something to inflate, of course.

It's not possible to imagine absolute nothingness - no place, no matter, no energy, no vacuum - absolute nothingness. But, unless the universe was always 'there', there had to be absolute nothingness, and then there was something. The something had to be created, since there is nothing in absolute nothingness that could cause it to happen. Alternatively, the universe may always have been there. Both cases beg the question, "How come?". And the only answer is a creator of some sort.

Your post started when something already existed but where did that something come from?

[Phil Deakins]

I've had a pair of binoculars and a small telescope for a very long time. For me to get into astronomy these days, I'd need a much better telescope and I don't feel the urge to go to those lengths.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The problem with all of that is that it entirely misses the point. It's impossible to imagine absolute nothingness - no space, however tiny, no matter, no vacuum, no energy - nothing whatsover. The Big Bang theory requires something to bang, however tiny the something is. It also requires somewhere (dimensions) for the bang to occur in, however tiny that somewhere is. The Big Bang theory describes what may or may not have happened when something already existed. It doesn't describe anything about how that something came into being. The inflationary theory needs something to inflate, of course.

It's not possible to imagine absolute nothingness - no place, no matter, no energy, no vacuum - absolute nothingness. But, unless the universe was always 'there', there had to be absolute nothingness, and then there was something. The something had to be created, since there is nothing in absolute nothingness that could cause it to happen. Alternatively, the universe may always have been there. Both cases beg the question, "How come?". And the only answer is a creator of some sort.

Your post started when something already existed but where did that something come from?

---

I don't think it misses the point. Renowned physicist Roger Penrose once answered the question of what came before the Big Bang by saying it was like asking what is north of the North Pole. The term north has no meaning at the Pole as the concept doesn't apply and the term 'before' has no meaning when when all of space and time was created in the Big Bang itself. Pre-big bang nothingness is absolute.

In your scenario, who created the 'creator'? The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is part of a conglomerate of universes continually spawning new growth but then who created the first universe and who created the creator of that.

There is no real satisfying answer to it all.

[Phil Deakins]

Yes, what came before the Big Bang is meaningless. Even using the word 'before' is meaningless because it entails time, which also didn't exist. Stephen Hawking, a friend of Roger Penrose, said the same thing. The various theories you mentioned only apply to the realm of existance. It's meaningless to ask what it was like before existance. But we are talking about how existance came to exist. What happened after the universe came into existance is irrelevant. When the universe came into existance, it may have been comprised of only energy and contained in the tiniest point possible, but it was still the universe existing in dimensions.

We can't know anything about the nothingness when the universe didn't exist. We can't even imagine it, because it isn't anything to imagine. You are talking about the existing universe (inflation, Big Bang, multiverses, etc.), which necessarily means during the time it exists. I have no heartfelt disagreement with such theories, but they apply after the universe came into being and they don't even try to address whether or not it was created.

What it boils down is this. (1) the universe (or universes) always existed; i.e. existance always existed. Or (2) existance was created, and when it didn't exist there was absolute nothingness. In both cases the question arises "How come the universe exists?" and the answer must be a creator of some sort.

ETA: I just re-read your post and you do seem to accept that the universe was created. You said, "when all of space and time was created in the Big Bang itself" and "Pre-big bang nothingness is absolute.", which is something I've been saying here. You suggest that the universe was created at the Big Bang, so we appear to agree that the universe had a creator of some sort, which is what I've been saying.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The problem with all of that is that it entirely misses the point. It's impossible to imagine absolute nothingness - no space, however tiny, no matter, no vacuum, no energy - nothing whatsover. The Big Bang theory requires something to bang, however tiny the something is. It also requires somewhere (dimensions) for the bang to occur in, however tiny that somewhere is. The Big Bang theory describes what may or may not have happened when something already existed. It doesn't describe anything about how that something came into being. The inflationary theory needs something to inflate, of course.

It's not possible to imagine absolute nothingness - no place, no matter, no energy, no vacuum - absolute nothingness. But, unless the universe was always 'there', there had to be absolute nothingness, and then there was something. The something had to be created, since there is nothing in absolute nothingness that could cause it to happen. Alternatively, the universe may always have been there. Both cases beg the question, "How come?". And the only answer is a creator of some sort.

Your post started when something already existed but where did that something come from?

---

I don't think it misses the point. Renowned physicist Roger Penrose once answered the question of what came before the Big Bang by saying it was like asking what is north of the North Pole. The term north has no meaning at the Pole as the concept doesn't apply and the term 'before' has no meaning when when all of space and time was created in the Big Bang itself. Pre-big bang nothingness is absolute.

In your scenario, who created the 'creator'? The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is part of a conglomerate of universes continually spawning new growth but then who created the first universe and who created the creator of that.

There is no real satisfying answer to it all.

---

Right, there's no satisfying answer. But I'm not bothered by that. The questions alone are interesting enough.

The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology.

If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-)