Does the universe have a beginning?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 11:24 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
We have no observational data about anything "before" the big bang. We only infer a singularity because that is where we get when we extrapolate back from the expansion. And as has been mentioned, assuming there was a singularity, it may have only existed for the most fleeting instant between the big bang (after) and whatever had been there before.


Indeed, the singularity is a result of logical deduction of the expansion and current state of the universe. Logic has its limits, but the inference of a singularity does logically correspond with our current observations.
 
Sound4People
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 12:34 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I agree that something had to come from nothing seems foolish. Especially when you consider the fact that defining nothing, ontologically, is not a very easy thing to do.

The idea that something has always existed, in the sense that something causally related to the universe has always existed, is not a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is probably the only possibility that clearly rings true once you think it through well enough.

I actually find both ideas absurd but I realize either one could be right. I would think the actually answer is a third choice we haven't come up with yet or we can't possibly comprehend (though I don't believe that there is anything we can't comprehend to a degree).
Still lets take something coming from nothing. If there is nothing for an eternity before 13.7 billion years ago or however old the universe is (after versing myself in a small amount of physics, I'm not convinced the universe is 13.7 billion years old, I don't think it could be any younger, but it looks to me like it could be quite a bit older and bigger than we can see) and theres a 0% chance anything will ever happen. Well give it an eternity for something to happen and it still might.
This is why I think both ideas are pretty absurd but have the potential to be right.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 12:51 pm
@Sound4People,
It comes down to the fact we have only one feasible theory.We have not one piece of evidence of anything prior to the big bang.I do believe there is a search going on for evidence but it has not been concluded.
With that in mind our feeble intelligence has trouble conceiving of the enormity of this event.From nothing, if its not from nothing what preceded this event and what caused it to seemly appear from nothing.It came from somewhere and came into our nothing, pretty amazing.
I can understand it if it was created , it makes more sense than this eternal what was before this and what about before that.I can understand beginnings, i cant comprehend eternity because for me it never existed.We could go mad thinking about it, looking at the creator Ive heard can do that.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 04:08 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
It comes down to the fact we have only one feasible theory.We have not one piece of evidence of anything prior to the big bang.I do believe there is a search going on for evidence but it has not been concluded.
With that in mind our feeble intelligence has trouble conceiving of the enormity of this event.From nothing, if its not from nothing what preceded this event and what caused it to seemly appear from nothing.It came from somewhere and came into our nothing, pretty amazing.
I can understand it if it was created , it makes more sense than this eternal what was before this and what about before that.I can understand beginnings, i cant comprehend eternity because for me it never existed.We could go mad thinking about it, looking at the creator Ive heard can do that.


I can comprehend eternity once I realize that clocks are just human mathematical constructs of events taking place in space-time. Don't get me wrong, it does seem strange to me, but I can comprehend the nature of eternity. You say that you can't comprehend eternity, but you seemed convinced of the possibility of an eternal supernatural being creating the universe by blowing his horn or trumpet.

Where in physics does it even imply that the singularity came from nothing? And what is nothing??? Nothing cannot exist because existence is something.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 08:38 pm
@hue-man,
Hue-man is correct.

People often misconstrue that the singularity or the universe or whatever you want to call it, came from nothing by quote-mining other physicists when in reality they arent asserting ex nihilo, but rather that the 'nothing' is in fact something.

I tend to think there always has and always will be something, which leads to the most obvious ad infinitum question but I'm working on a way around that...
 
YumClock
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 08:47 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I can comprehend eternity once I realize that clocks are just human mathematical constructs of events taking place in space-time.


Clocks are also quite delicious.

I think you have a good point in saying that eternity is not ludicrous. However, since time is a part of space (and may in fact be spacial, depending on how you look at it) and no space we know of is infinite, I would say that our universe's time cannot be infinite, either.

Of course, the likelyhood is that none of this is knowable.
 
Aphoric
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 09:00 pm
@hue-man,
Check it. Before the universe existed. Everything that consists of matter and energy was comprised in an infinitesimal point we call a "singularity". Now this singularity has been conservatively estimated to have a diameter smaller than an atom's, maybe even a quark's (or at least as large).

It is not unreasonable to assume that before this point, there was nothingness (at least regarding space and time). We know that infinity is not mathematically possible, so the universe MUST have begun at some point. The fact that it had a beginning leads us to rationally assume it was caused by something.

Sauf que you believe that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing. In that case, good luck with the chance that a horse might pop into your living room uncaused out of nothing. If you really think about it, asserting that things begin to exist uncaused out of nothing is highly irrational.

In summation, the mathematical impossibility of infinity + the cosmological measuring of radiation to prove that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been compressed into a "singularity" at some point leads us to rationally assume that the universe began, and further, that because it began to exist, it must have a cause.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 09:39 pm
@hue-man,
Quote:
The creationists are chasing a lost cause.

Well I certainly agree that the Dinosaurs in Genesis mob are hopelessly deluded. However, the mainstream Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo is another thing altogether. Interestingly, Catholicism supports neither creationism nor Intelligent Design, as lucidly explained in this article [disclaimer: I am not Catholic.]
 
Sound4People
 
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:28 am
@Aphoric,
Aphoric wrote:


Sauf que you believe that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing. In that case, good luck with the chance that a horse might pop into your living room uncaused out of nothing. If you really think about it, asserting that things begin to exist uncaused out of nothing is highly irrational.

I couldn't agree more. The exact same irrational as something, and by something I mean anything including: the universe, God, something else, always having existed. They are virtually indistinguishable ideas. If you keep going back there is always going to be an uncaused something coming out of nothing or something always having existed.

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

YumClock wrote:

Of course, the likelyhood is that none of this is knowable.

I disagree. Knowing about Jupiter and it's moons were unknowable until Galleo took a telescope and looked at it. Knowing about cells and germ theory was unknowable until the first guy made a microscope (its credited by different people and I don't know the history so well). Just because we can't think of a reasonable answer now, does not mean we won't ever be able to come up with a reasonable answer. And because we don't have the tecnology to investigate those things doesn't mean we will never have the technology to investigate those sorts of things.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 02:58 am
@Sound4People,
Just a few points, i am led to believe that the background microwaves that exist point to the fact that there was no before.No expanding and contracting as been suggested.Excuse me if wrong but the singularity is only an explanation of how the universe first appeared.It appeared from what appears nothing and formed this universe.This i believe is all we know, what lies beyond the singularity is a mystery and all theories are just as valid as the next.Expressing existence without time can only ever be a concept or a belief in an ethereal universe where there is no need of physical experience.Pure thought without neurons firing in a brain of electrochemical reactions.The possibility of just one thing can explain so many other mysteries that elude us.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 09:07 am
@Aphoric,
Aphoric wrote:
Check it. Before the universe existed. Everything that consists of matter and energy was comprised in an infinitesimal point we call a "singularity". Now this singularity has been conservatively estimated to have a diameter smaller than an atom's, maybe even a quark's (or at least as large).

It is not unreasonable to assume that before this point, there was nothingness (at least regarding space and time). We know that infinity is not mathematically possible, so the universe MUST have begun at some point. The fact that it had a beginning leads us to rationally assume it was caused by something.

Sauf que you believe that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing. In that case, good luck with the chance that a horse might pop into your living room uncaused out of nothing. If you really think about it, asserting that things begin to exist uncaused out of nothing is highly irrational.

In summation, the mathematical impossibility of infinity + the cosmological measuring of radiation to prove that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been compressed into a "singularity" at some point leads us to rationally assume that the universe began, and further, that because it began to exist, it must have a cause.


So you define nothingness as the absence of space/time? So by that definition, wouldn't the singularity be defined as nothing? If so, then why should something be defined as nothing merely because it is void of space-time?

Mathematical infinity may be impossible, but is cosmological infinity impossible? The leading theory for the ending of the universe is the theory of infinite expansion and the big freeze.

Infinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a problem with ultimate causality. If the universal singularity needed a cause then what caused the cause that caused the singularity to exist?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 10:18 am
@Aphoric,
Aphoric wrote:
the universe MUST have begun at some point
A beginning is only logically necessary in a linear conception of time that is divorced from its codependencies on space/matter/energy. Since time can only be comprehended from within our universe, we have no way of excluding (let alone regarding) whole different cosmic epochs of time.

Aphoric wrote:
good luck with the chance that a horse might pop into your living room uncaused out of nothing
And good luck with the chance that God may create a horse in your living room, too...
 
Lost phil
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 09:16 pm
@hue-man,
No. because the universe isn't real. You made it up.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 04:44:41