Susanann what was there 5 minutes BEFORE God existed ?
Exactly why I put this in G.D. It is beyond our scope, not because we’re dimwittted but because it is fairly possible that we cannot envision or comprehend anything coming close to what existed, and in what state or form, before the elements coalesced into the Moment.
I cannot buy that out of nothingness came a force so immense that billions of years later, its force is still being felt all over the Universe. There was something in place before that Event. Must have been.
Cartooniverse, I strongly urge you to read at least the OP of the thread I linked to.
Travel back in time, and one reaches a point at which time becomes less “time-like”. If it is not time anymore, then these words are nonsensical:[ul][li]before[]change[]become[]was[]coalesced[]cause[]event[/ul], and so on.[/li]
The Big Bang is not an “Event”, it is a “place”. At that place, time does not “proceed”: it is timeless.
Then big bang is an event as it is a location in space-time.
Oh very well, MC, “place” (which you will notice I did put in inverted commas) is perhaps also an inadequate description of this co-ordinate in configurational space or however you’d like to phrase it. I merely thought that a “place in 4 dimensions” is rather less misleading than an “event without time”.
I leave it in your capable hands to present the subject to the layman in easily understood terms.
I was just pointing out that in physics the word ‘event’ has a precise menaing- a point in a four-dimensional continuum with three spatial directions and one dimension proportional to time.
In terms of Hawking’s and Hartle’s imaginery time the big bang singularity is just a single point of many on a closed(?) surface.
This is not entirely accurate. Humans as a species on a fairly young planet in the Milky-Way Galexy most likely have not evolved enough yet to comprehend exactly how the universe was formed. In a ten thousand years, the theory of the Big Bang may be completely refuted with another theory we do not understand yet…Possibly brought about by some new discovery. This could happen sooner than later, the point being we do not know.
The scientists who discuss the theories of the Big Bang know much more than I. However, with some certainty they do not know for absolute fact that a Big Bang actually created the universe we live in today.
Carl Sagan was famed for saying that it is nearly statistically impossible for us to be the only species in the universe capable of complex thought…Further more on this theory, if we are not alone it is entirly possible that other species understand where the universe came from, and when we as a species get to that understanding, maybe the simplicity of it inherently will make us more aware of our cosmic surroundings.
Discussing what existed before the Big Bang is very important to discussing origins of our own consciousness. Those who think it is a moot point because they believe only in the theory of the big bang are missing something in my opinion. I wish I could say what they are missing, but then i think that is what the OP is looking for…
This really isn’t relative to the OP but the cite was posted.
Susanann I like your story but your cite contains an inconsistency.
According to this cite God was acting, and then noticing that it was good. So he was acting arbitrarily and noticing a consequence irrelevant to the motive of his actions. According to the Bible, God IS good. Did God create what he is? This suggests that God created good, so I must ask, what was he before he created good?
The Big Bang didn’t create the universe, it is the universe.
There is no discussion. The only reason I believe you think they are “missing something” is because you simply cannot divest yourself of the notion of temporality. Surely it is those who cannot bring themselves to conceive of timelessness who are “missing out”?
As I siad before there are sevral ways to consider a pre-big bang universe, such as pre-big bang inflationary stage (which is not the same as the as the post-big bang inflationary stage), in this model if IIRC the major forces had not yet ‘decoupled’.
not major force, fundamnetal forces.
As I understood it, MC, one would in that case merely be considering the time-like properties of these “domains”, or perhaps cogitating upon how this thing we think of as time “emerged”. Would you agree that the words “before” and “pre-Big Bang” are a little misleading in this sense, and should be reserved solely for our region of the universe characterised by 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal multiplied by i or not) one, ie. the post-BB universe?
Important bracket required: …one temporal **(**multiplied by i or not)…
Yes, if IIRC in this period according to the model time or any of the ‘curled-up’ dimensions had not yet acquired there distinct properties.
The imaginery time axis forms a temporal fifth dimension of space-time.
I’ll agree the notion of timelessness is difficult for me to grasp. Though I can see it quite well through your elaboration here:
What I would like to know then is How. The very word Bang refers to something that has happened right? If the big bang is a “place”, and not to be thought of as an “event” , then what question should be asked to make this a rational arguement about the existance of “the Big Bang”. i.e If I do not understand your statment how should I word my question to grasp it further? As a psychologist I am one who likes to ask a lot of questions, and as someone who has been labled “one who doesn’t ask the appropriate questions to get the answer I am looking for” I find myself asking what questions I should ask. Given the person I am speaking with knows what answer I am looking for, and knows I lack the knowledge of the subject to ask the appropriate question.
The term was actually coined by Fred Hoyle, a “steady state” cosmologist, in order to ridicule the idea of an expanding universe. I (and many others I believe) really would like to see the term replaced by “timeless singularity” or something less misleading. (The problem is that it might not be truly timeless and it might not be zero in size, ie. a true singularity!)
We are very confident in our observations that the universe is expanding, and this and the microwave background suggest very strongly that the universe was tiny if not zero in size some 12 billion years ago. Quantum cosmology attempts to apply the physics of the very small (quantum mechanics) to the entire universe (cosmology), but as a subject it is in its infancy - the How is what the finest minds in the world are fizzing over!
Perhaps your question is best posed: What is the current state of quantum cosmology?
Thank you! I look forward to future observations and new discoveries in quantum cosmology. It is a wonderful subject to try and wrap ones brain around…and I emphasize the TRY to wrap ones brain around.
Do remember guys that the Big Bang is a theory… heavily backed by the scientists but still a theory… not absolute truth. Thou I agree that our perceptions and notions do limit our understanding. Tommorrow someone might come up with better explanations…
Heh heh, I too find the subject as bamboozling as I find it captivating.
Scientific American does a quantum cosmology article about once a year, and the subject is moving pretty fast by all accounts.
However, the best starting point is probably Hawking’s “The Universe in a Nutshell” or “A Brief History of Time”. (Don’t worry, everyone gave up on A Brief History of Time after a few chapters on their first go. Have another go, and don’t be afraid to spend a week on one page!)