No offense, but y’all are speculating without evidence.
We don’t know what comes before the big bang. Could be anything, could be nothing. There’s no evidence from which we can construct a rational explation.
No, science can’t speculate as to the origin of the universe because we have no evidence from which to deduce the laws of physics at that time.
All space, time and matter that we can observe has the big bang as one of its time-like boundries.
Actually, I recall reading recently (but I can’t remember where) that we have a pretty confident model back to about ten minutes after the Big Bang and some pretty reasonable hypotheses about conditions back to about a second or two after. We still don’t fully understand QM at very high energy.
But let me repeat: No one, no scientist, no religion, no human intelligence has any information whatsoever about the physical laws or lack thereof in effect before the Big Bang. You can speculate all you want, create an infinity of hypotheses, but there is no rational basis whatsoever to distinguish the truth or falsehood of any speculation, any hypothesis.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick
minor point, but I would add that science is utilitarian–its function is to connect and reconcile those things that we can observe and quantify. It makes no claims to truth or wisdom, and it is infinitely adaptable to changing knowledge and conditions. The fact that the fundamental laws of the universe seem to evaporate under Big Bang conditions is an illusion of perception, predicated on our acceptance of scientific understanding as “truth”. I feel strongly (and yes it is just a feeling) that the universe operates on immutable principle that apply even to the very beginnings (which might also be the ends) of time, and that as our understanding of those principles deepens our perception of the Big Bang singularity as something irrational–requiring supernatural hypotheses–will diminish.
In the current issue of Scientific American, Reinhard Stock of the University of Frankfurt and one of the leading CERN scientists wrote: “we have extended our knowledge back to 10 microseconds after the big bang”. This on the heels of recent studies on quark-gluon plasma.
Personally, I think it’s kind of silly to speak of microseconds or seconds or minutes or even years after the big bang with any kind of certainty. I’m still not convinced that the big bang occured… maybe it was a big ooze.
“I personally ascribe to the oscillating universe model…it makes the most sense because you cannot create or destroy energy.”
Uhm… Have you ever read up on Quantum Mechanics?? Scientists right now are probably creating energy somewhere in the world! They use Quantum Fluctuations. Energy can be destroyed and created in a total vacuum.
Before you jump to conclusions(assume) know a little about what your talking about. Just cause youve been told that we cannot create or destroy energy doesnt mean its true. Think beyond what they tell you…
~Thinker OUT~
“See beyond what they show you, for what they show you is simply not real!” - ME! Think about it…
For those of us who have been thoroughly duped by the scientific “man” into thinking that energy can be neither created nor destroyed: would you be so kind as to point us towards some reading materials to support your statements about quantum fluctuations and the creation/destruction of energy? Preferably something that doesn’t require a Ph.D. in Physics.
I believe I know what you’re referring to, and your interpretation is flawed. What has been proven is that in a vacuum, you can have particles spontaneously appear out of nothing. However, for each particle formed, an antiparticle is also formed, so the net change in energy is zero. Conservation of energy is saved!
If this is not what you’re referring to, gimme a citation and I’ll look into it.
I believe I know what you’re referring to, and your interpretation is flawed. What has been proven is that in a vacuum, you can have particles spontaneously appear out of nothing. However, for each particle formed, an antiparticle is also formed, so the net change in energy is zero. Conservation of energy is saved!
If this is not what you’re referring to, gimme a citation and I’ll look into it.
Indeed. Or, from a variant perspective, the traditional model of linear causality fails to improve on “The world came into existence because it could”. Being a neo-Wiccan, that suits me theologically.