What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Greybeard]

I read a good one recently. We assume when making all our red shift measurements that time is a constant. If we remove that assumption then suddenly we don't require dark mass and the measured levels of 'dark energy' (or vacuum energy) actually match up with that required by the models. However it destroys lorenz symmetry and you have to start modifying general relativity. Which might just mean that that suddenly fits in with quantum mechanics and you start looking like you're actually making some sensible progress in explaining everything.

 

Sounds like the article I liked to earlier

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html

[InigoMontoya]

Yes, I know the obvious answer is,'nothing existed before the big bang; how could it?.. but to accept that theory defies logical. Something must have existed before the singularity, which went on to form our universe exploded/expanded(whatever)into being.

 

How could time and space not exist before this; well I'll accept that time couldn't exist before it, but space must have, or at least something to the affect of space must have existed to allow the expansion of the singularity.

 

So does anyone have any theories on this cos it's mind-boggling.

 

I can't be bothered to trawl through the rest of the responses to this, but I note it's an on-going thread.

 

So I'll re-iterate what someone must have already told you.

 

 

It doesn't "defy logic". Nothing existed "before" the Big Bang, for the simple reason there was nowhere for it to exist "in".

 

(There's a simple corollary to this, one of the theories about the existence of the Universe was the "Steady State" theory - the Universe had always existed, and always would exist.

 

The analogy given for this was dominoes, tumbling forever into the future.

 

Well. If you can grasp they continue forever forwards, then why do you need to think they continue forever backwards, and someone "must have" knocked over the first stone. The argument there was, er, no there didn't.)

 

It's a simplistic analogy I know, and doesn't stand up to rigourous cross-examination, but, in simplistic terms - before the big bang - the stones weren't tumbling - time wasn't happening and the show wasn't on for the speatators.

 

(And that still needs quite a lot of work!)

[danot]

It is possible - just barely - that space is not expanding, and that there is a completely different reason for the red shift that distant galaxies show, completely unrelated to velocity.

 

All attempts to find one in the last eighty years have failed completely, usually because they cannot explain why the red shift is proportional to distance. With every failure, the theory that space is expanding gains strength.

But in effect, we'd still be travelling through space wouldn't we, with everything in all directions appearing to become more and more distant from our view point.

[onewheeldave]

No!. The opposite premise has not been proven to be true.. It's nothing more than a popular theory.

 

 

There's no reason to believe that the popular theory(your premise) is the truth. There's no reason to believe the opposite is false. The truth is:- there's no way of knowing, because as yet, we don't have the slightest idea as to how either would work.

 

No!, it doesn't mean it must be true. How can it be true when the theory cannot be tested?.. how can either be true or false?

 

It simply means that 'space being contained, presents a major problem to our present train of thought.

 

Your reasoning only applies to our present train of thought. IT CANNOT be applied to whether space does or does not require a further space to exist. It's ludicrous to think it could.

 

Besides, the premise behind the universe being infinate presents major problems to our present train of thought, so should we assume that that's false also?.. which by default would make the opposite true.

 

--------------

 

My argument makes no reference whatsoever to any 'popular theory'- it's a purely logical argument.

 

It starts from your claim (that a space cannot exist without being contained in a further space).

 

OK? no reference to any popular theories at this point.

 

Commencing from your claim, it then, by reason alone and again, with no reference to any popular theory, shows that the requirement for a containing space must equally well apply to the second space.

 

Are you still following this? You'll note that the argument to this point uses only your original claim and some logic- it does not refer to any 'popular theory'.

 

Once we've esatblished that a further space must be required (assuming your claim is true) then, yet another space is required and, we have an infinite regress- an infinite heirachy of such spaces.

 

So, by using only your claim and some logical reasoning, with no reference to any other theory, popular or otherwise, we get the inevitable conclusion that an infinite heirachy of spaces would be needed if your claim was true- which it clearly isn't.

 

If your claim, that a space cannot exist without being contained in a further space, is untrue, then, again by logic alone, with no reference to any popular theory, it must be the sapce that space exists without being contained in a further space.

 

Notice also that it does not contain any 'premise' of mine- the only thing resembling a premise is the fact that it starts by assuming your claim is true (and deriving a nonsense conclusion, thus establishing that the original claim (yours) is not true).

 

================

 

It's now pretty obvious to me that your (as someone else put it) 'problem in this thread' is that you simply can't follow a logical argument.

 

Now that's not to put you down- fact is that life can be got on with without the ability to follow a logical argument, but, in the context of a thread like this, the inability to follow a logical argument is pretty fatal

 

There's plenty online stuff about basic logic- if you do want to understand arguments like the one above, then you'd do well to have a look at them.

[artisan]

If you're willing to accept the claim that something can exist without being created, you don't need to postulate God to begin with. You can simply accept the Universe as existing without being created.

 

If you are not willing to accept the claim that something can exist without being created, you cannot claim that God exists unless something created Him.

 

To just see everything as it is though, is to put yourself at the level of an animal.

You may as well be a dog, or cattle if you only see things as they confront you.

Imagination, and thought of how things came about are what makes us Human.

You think the Universe is just there because it is?

What a blinkered thought.

[Lockjaw]

But in effect, we'd still be travelling through space wouldn't we, with everything in all directions appearing to become more and more distant from our view point.

 

Sorry to sound harsh again, Danot, but you clearly don't understand the fundamentals here.

 

The point HN was making requires an understanding of why "we" believe the universe to be expanding. It's because galaxies exhibit "red shift" (look it up) when the light from them is viewed in a certain way... It's not just that they "look like" they're moving away from us as you appear to suggest.

 

HN was referring to a suggestion (hypothesis, if you like) that the red shift observed has another cause and is not, in fact, a result of the galaxies moving away from us.

[Lockjaw]

You think the Universe is just there because it is?

What a blinkered thought.

 

That seems a strange thing to say.

 

Are you suggesting the universe is here for a reason?

 

(Note to Deavon ... this is not a so-called smart-alec one-liner ... I am asking Artisan to expand on his postulation ... hope that's ok with you)

[danot]

My argument makes no reference whatsoever to any 'popular theory'- it's a purely logical argument.

 

It starts from your claim (that a space cannot exist without being contained in a further space).

 

OK? no reference to any popular theories at this point.

 

Commencing from your claim, it then, by reason alone and again, with no reference to any popular theory, shows that the requirement for a containing space must equally well apply to the second space.

 

Are you still following this? You'll note that the argument to this point uses only your original claim and some logic- it does not refer to any 'popular theory'.

 

Once we've esatblished that a further space must be required (assuming your claim is true) then, yet another space is required and, we have an infinite regress- an infinite heirachy of such spaces.

 

So, by using only your claim and some logical reasoning, with no reference to any other theory, popular or otherwise, we get the inevitable conclusion that an infinite heirachy of spaces would be needed if your claim was true- which it clearly isn't.

 

If your claim, that a space cannot exist without being contained in a further space, is untrue, then, again by logic alone, with no reference to any popular theory, it must be the sapce that space exists without being contained in a further space.

 

Notice also that it does not contain any 'premise' of mine- the only thing resembling a premise is the fact that it starts by assuming your claim is true (and deriving a nonsense conclusion, thus establishing that the original claim (yours) is not true).

 

================

 

It's now pretty obvious to me that your (as someone else put it) 'problem in this thread' is that you simply can't follow a logical argument.

 

Now that's not to put you down- fact is that life can be got on with without the ability to follow a logical argument, but, in the context of a thread like this, the inability to follow a logical argument is pretty fatal

 

There's plenty online stuff about basic logic- if you do want to understand arguments like the one above, then you'd do well to have a look at them.

I'm aware that my claim makes no sense, but having said that, neither does the alternative. there's no "real logic" to be found in either claim, because neither of them conform to our logic.

 

All you've done here is claim that the contradiction found in one claim, must make the alternative true.. but why must the alternative be true?

[onewheeldave]

I'm aware that my claim makes no sense, but having said that, neither does the alternative. there's no "real logic" to be found in either claim, because neither of them conform to our logic.

 

All you've done here is claim that the contradiction found in one claim, must make the alternative true.. but why must the alternative be true?

 

Great- you're aware that your claim makes no sense

 

Why didn't you say that 10 pages back and saved me the work of explaining and re-explaining the same argument 5 times??

 

Still, at least you've accepted that the notion of a space requiring a further space to exist in, or to 'expand into' makes no sense.

 

If you now want to maintain that the only other possible alternative, that space can exist without being in another space, is also nonsense, then you'll need to put forward a decent argument showing that.

 

I wait with bated breathe

[danot]

Sorry to sound harsh again, Danot, but you clearly don't understand the fundamentals here.

 

The point HN was making requires an understanding of why "we" believe the universe to be expanding. It's because galaxies exhibit "red shift" (look it up) when the light from them is viewed in a certain way... It's not just that they "look like" they're moving away from us as you appear to suggest.

 

HN was referring to a suggestion (hypothesis, if you like) that the red shift observed has another cause and is not, in fact, a result of the galaxies moving away from us.

I'm aware of red shift(blue-red spectrum) I believe it's the visual equivalent of the doppler effect.

 

Furthermore, my reason for saying they "appear" to be moving away from us was intentional, I was referring to what I believe to be the cause, because I don't know for sure, it's only what I've been led to believe, I was referring to it has someone else's theory, so don't make the mistake of thinking I'm completely docile.

 

Anyhow, do you think red shift would still be present if it were galaxies that were imploding?