What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe

[Ahimsa]

ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — The Big Bang is widely considered to have obliterated any trace of what came before. Now, astrophysicists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) think that their new theoretical interpretation of an imprint from the earliest stages of the universe may also shed light on what came before.

“It’s no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang,” comments Marc Kamionkowski, Caltech’s Robinson Professor of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics. Kamionkowski joined graduate student Adrienne Erickcek and senior research associate in physics Sean Carroll to propose a mathematical model explaining an anomaly in what is supposed to be a universe of uniformly distributed radiation and matter.
…
But the perturbation that the researchers introduced may also offer the first glimpse at what came before the Big Bang, because it could be an imprint inherited from the time before inflation. “All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally,” Kamionkowski says. “If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil.”

 

[Trishie]

The big band remains a theory…but it’s also another description of the beginning of Creation by God by scientists who think it excludes the action of God. It doesn’t.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ahimsa:
there are a ton of theories, but they are only suppositions based on guesses for the most part.

so i prefer to use what we know, or at least what we observe. which would be ‘current conditions’

mathematically regressing back through time from these conditions eventually runs into infinite values, around 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang. at that point there is posited an ‘infinite moment’ where there was no time or physical laws. and thats where what we actually know ends. what can we infer from this?

there was no monobloc. there was only an expansion. with no source…except an apparently self existent infinity.

now i cant say that this is G-d, but its curious that those are the very qualities that we have been claiming for G-d for recorded human history.

so if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

now as i said there are many theories but they all boil down to guesses extrapolated from more guesses, pretty stories, but for now thats all they are.

 

[JimG]

Post-big bang inflation also remains a theory and might at some point be discarded. At least one physicist has suggest that in the early universe the speed of light was variable, (and much faster) as a substitute for inflation. But that’s even more theoretical.

 

[rossum]

there are a ton of theories, but they are only suppositions based on guesses for the most part.

Scientific theories are based on observations, such as the observations mentioned in the OP.

mathematically regressing back through time from these conditions eventually runs into infinite values, around 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang.

Only some of the possible theories give infinite values, and it is probably an indication that those theories are incorrect. We do not see infinite values in the real universe. Read up on the history of black body radiation for an example. It is very probably that those infinities are not real, just an artefact of errors in those theories as was the case with black body radiation.

now i cant say that this is G-d, but its curious that those are the very qualities that we have been claiming for G-d for recorded human history.

It is not wise to base your argument for God on science. Science changes, so you have no certainty that future changes in science will not destroy your argument.

rossum

 

[a_priori]

If space/time began at the Big Bang, then a “before” is not possible?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Scientific theories are based on observations, such as the observations mentioned in the OP.

which is a postulation that it is an imprint from the ‘earliest stages of the universe’. an imprint on what? there is no monobloc shown by regression from current conditions or the standard cosmological model. (we can have that argument again too)

Only some of the possible theories give infinite values, and it is probably an indication that those theories are incorrect.

we have already had this argument. theories in this matter are just guesses based on more guesses.

We do not see infinite values in the real universe. Read up on the history of black body radiation for an example. It is very probably that those infinities are not real, just an artefact of errors in those theories as was the case with black body radiation.

but we do see infinite values prior to the expansion, which by definition would be outside of this universe.

It is not wise to base your argument for God on science. Science changes, so you have no certainty that future changes in science will not destroy your argument.

as i said, in both our previous argument and in my immediate previous post. i cant say for sure that its G-d, but its awful suspicious. back to the ‘looks like a duck’ theory.

 

[rossum]

If space/time began at the Big Bang, then a “before” is not possible?

You started your statement with an “If”. That gives two possibilities, if time did start at the Big Bang then the universe is eternal - there is no time at which the universe does not exist. If time did not start at the Big Bang then we can develop theories about what happened before it. The OP refers to just one such effort.

rossum

 

[rossum]

which is a postulation that it is an imprint from the ‘earliest stages of the universe’.

Yes. Science works by induction, not by deduction as with mathematics.

but we do see infinite values prior to the expansion, which by definition would be outside of this universe.

Did you read up on the history of the theory of black body radiation? Using classical physics to calculate the energy of the radiation emitted by a black body resulted in infinite energy, called the ultraviolet catastrophe this was a strong indication that there was a problem with classical physics in this area. When a quantum, rather than classical, approach was taken then the infinity disappeared. The infinity was not a real infinity, obviously, but an artefact of an incorrect theory. The infinities that appear in some calculations relating to the very early stages of the universe are also artefacts of incorrect theories. You should not base your argument for the existence of God on such infinities because they will disappear in a correct theory along with your argument for God.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

if time did start at the Big Bang then the universe is eternal - there is no time at which the universe does not exist.

if time did start at the big bang, that does not make the universe eternal, it means that time itself is not eternal, as in ‘always existing’ so the universe by the same token, could not be always existing and therefore not eternal. the idea of ‘eternal’ is not linked to a time continuum.

Eternal E*ter"nal, a. [F. ['e]ternel, L. aeternalis, fr.
aeternus. See Etern.]

1. Without beginning or end of existence; always existing.
   [1913 Webster]

just FYI below

Sophistry
Sophistry Soph"ist*ry, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.]

1. The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.]
   [1913 Webster]
2. The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning
   sound in appearance only.
   [1913 Webster]

The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part,
in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in
another sense in the conclusion. --Coleridge.
[1913 Webster]

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Did you read up on the history of the theory of black body radiation? Using classical physics to calculate the energy of the radiation emitted by a black body resulted in infinite energy, called the ultraviolet catastrophe this was a strong indication that there was a problem with classical physics in this area.

once again, those infinite values that you keep trying to intimate must be a mistake, occur prior to the formation of physical laws that the cavity radiation problem is based on.

When a quantum, rather than classical, approach was taken then the infinity disappeared. The infinity was not a real infinity, obviously, but an artefact of an incorrect theory. The infinities that appear in some calculations relating to the very early stages of the universe are also artefacts of incorrect theories. You should not base your argument for the existence of God on such infinities because they will disappear in a correct theory along with your argument for God.

as soon as any of these theories are proven then i will worry, but as the last 100 years or so have failed to do so, i will bide my time with what we actually know from regressing current conditions as opposed to wildly varying theories that change quite regularly.

quantum mechanics has varying interpretations, the favorite of which currently seems to be electrodynamics. how long before that changes? it has many rivals that could also be correct.

frankly your argument seems to be that my argument may be wrong so i shouldn’t make it. under that reasoning why make any argument concerning anything whatsoever?

 

[edjco]

Well, here’s what I’m wondering. Maybe someone who believes that the “Big Bang” theory proves God didn’t make the universe can answer this for me.

1. What banged?
2. Where did the aforementioned stuff that banged come from?
3. Is it remotely possible that God created the stuff with which to bang and then caused the bang?
4. Have I used the word “bang” too many times in one post?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

but it’s also another description of the beginning of Creation by God by scientists who think it excludes the action of God.

No, it is not that.

 

[rossum]

if time did start at the big bang, that does not make the universe eternal, it means that time itself is not eternal, as in ‘always existing’ so the universe by the same token, could not be always existing and therefore not eternal. the idea of ‘eternal’ is not linked to a time continuum.

How do you define “always existing” in the absence of time? If there is no time when the universe did not exist then the universe is eternal since the universe exists for all time. At every possible time from the beginning of time onwards, the universe exists.

How do you define “eternal” in the absence of time? How do you define “beginning” in the absence of time? How do you define "end in the absence of time?

You need to think more about this point.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How do you define “always existing” in the absence of time?

from the definition of ‘eternal’ i just gave. always existing. time is a dimension of this universe interior to this system as far as we know

If there is no time when the universe did not exist then the universe is eternal since the universe exists for all time

.

time would seem to be contingent on the universe, not the other way around

At every possible time from the beginning of time onwards, the universe exists.

time didnt start until the expansion did, thus it would seem time is interior to this system. its a good measuring stick in here but it would be senseless elsewhere.

How do you define “eternal” in the absence of time?

i like the word ‘infinite’, or the definition ‘always existing’

How do you define “beginning” in the absence of time? How do you define "end in the absence of time?

as the definition of eternal is ‘always existing’ you dont, thats why the universe cannot be eternal, it had a beginning, and it looks like it will end.

You need to think more about this point.

yes you do

 

[rossum]

from the definition of ‘eternal’ i just gave. always existing.

Please define “always” in the absence of time. In my definition “always” means “for every possible value of time” - the definition depends on time. So, “always existing” becomes “existing for every possible value of time”, which is true of a universe which starts at the same instant as time - at time zero. The universe exists at time zero and for all subsequent values of time. The universe is eternal.

time would seem to be contingent on the universe, not the other way around

Not neccessarily. Are you familiar with the concept of unrolling dimensions?

time didnt start until the expansion did, thus it would seem time is interior to this system. its a good measuring stick in here but it would be senseless elsewhere.

Hence my point about using time-dependent words like “eternal” outside time. You cannot use a word where its definition does not apply. To use your own analogy, the measuring sticks you are trying to use for before the Big Bang are not valid there.

i like the word ‘infinite’, or the definition ‘always existing’

What is non-infinite about time? The positive integers on their own form exactly the same infinity as the positive and negative integers combined. Elementary Cantor set theory tells us that.

as the definition of eternal is ‘always existing’ you dont, thats why the universe cannot be eternal, it had a beginning,

Please specify a value of time at which the universe did not exist. If the universe exists for all of time then that universe is eternal in my book.

rossum

 

[Rolltide]

Well, here’s what I’m wondering. Maybe someone who believes that the “Big Bang” theory proves God didn’t make the universe can answer this for me.

1. What banged?
2. Where did the aforementioned stuff that banged come from?
3. Is it remotely possible that God created the stuff with which to bang and then caused the bang?
4. Have I used the word “bang” too many times in one post?

Am I the only one getting horrible William Hung images here?

 

[Diddi]

Am I the only one getting horrible William Hung images here?

And she bangs, she bangs
Oh baby
When she moves, she moves
I go crazy
'Cause she looks like a flower but she stings
like a bee
Like every girl in history
She bangs, she bangs

Thanks alot. You were the only one. Next time, keep it to yourself.:tsktsk:

 

[crowonsnow]

If space/time began at the Big Bang, then a “before” is not possible?

Certainly not in a linear sense, which is how most perceive time to exist.

Symmetry is no different. Symmetry relies on the concept of sameness, things being identical. Scientifically speaking there is no sameness in the universe, and therefore symmetry is just another myth. It’s therefore quite interesting that someone can “theorize” that the universe should have symmetry, when in fact there is none to be observed anywhere. Scientific theories are supposed to be based on observation, not preconceived human sensibilities.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please define “always” in the absence of time. In my definition “always” means “for every possible value of time” - the definition depends on time. So, “always existing” becomes “existing for every possible value of time”, which is true of a universe which starts at the same instant as time - at time zero. The universe exists at time zero and for all subsequent values of time. The universe is eternal.

thats the problem the definition of ‘eternal’ is always existing, its not linked to time. time did not always exist, so time is not ‘eternal’ either.

you would have better luck changing your terminology. these are the points where language begins to fail concepts.

Not neccessarily. Are you familiar with the concept of unrolling dimensions?

no, but you know how i feel about wild conjecture.

Hence my point about using time-dependent words like “eternal” outside time. You cannot use a word where its definition does not apply. To use your own analogy, the measuring sticks you are trying to use for before the Big Bang are not valid there.

what are you talking about? when have i done that?, please provide a post # and thread. because i dont remember talking about time before the big bang.

What is non-infinite about time? The positive integers on their own form exactly the same infinity as the positive and negative integers combined. Elementary Cantor set theory tells us that

.

time had a beginning and we have yet to see if it has an end so , calling time infinite is very premature. you are assuming and endless set of positive intergers.

Please specify a value of time at which the universe did not exist. If the universe exists for all of time then that universe is eternal in my book.

the universe, time, and all physical laws had a beginning. time is only relevant in terms of this universe, which does not make it eternal.

you can use the term however you like but, its just word games trying to rescue a lost argument from my perspective, you may see it differently. maybe im wrong about that, but as a matter of my profession i can smell motives a mile away. so i will trust my instincts.