What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[HeadingNorth]

Story today that they've made more accurate measurements and we're heading for heat death, not big crunch.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11030889, for those who care to read up on it.

 

 

The detail behind the story is beyond my ken, I'm not that good of a scientist; but I get the general drift of things. If there's more than a certain amount of mass/energy in the Universe, given its current size, then it will eventually stop expanding, collapse on itself and Big Crunch; if there is not, then it will expand forever. This story above, to which you refer, suggests that the latter is true. I have no idea how thoroughly checked it is, at this point.

[Cyclone]

This one was actually an attempt to measure "dark energy" which pushes things apart, they reckon the more accurate measurement puts it into ever expanding.

 

Of course if the ideas about time not being a constant were true then dark energy is no longer required to be massively more powerful than our maths would suggest otherwise...

[danot]

In essence, in order for something to exist, it must have a "place" ie it must exist somewhere, something can't exist nowhere, and it must have "a time", something can't exist outside of time. In essence, it must exist within space/time.

 

As there was nowhere for anything to exist prior to the big bang, and no time for it to exist in, it is illogical to suggest that anything can have existed before the big bang, rather than as the OP states, illogical that there was nothing there.

It is by no means illogical to suggest that something must have existed before the big bang.

 

Or at least, it's no more illogical than suggesting "nothing" existed before the big bang.

 

Regardless of what our logical reasoning leads us to believe, both possibilities are illogical.

[danot]

Good question.

 

It all depends on your idea of what the universe actually is - many people see it as the thing within which everything exists, but it doesn't really exist as anything itself, if that makes sense. Imagine a bowl, the universe is the inside of that ball, but importantly it does not include anything of the structure of the ball itself - so the universe is the space within the universe and nothing else.

 

So in direct answer, the "universe" is simply a description of everywhere that there is space/time.

But why should the universe not need a reason.. a cause for it's existence, it is after all simply part of natures grand scheme in which everything has a cause.

 

To believe the universe doesn't need a cause for it's existence, simply because it's the only thing that makes logical sense, is in itself senseless.

 

What ever the answer is,(to what created the universe, and something must have) we're a long way from knowing it.

[Cyclone]

You've gone 38 pages and still not grasped it. There need not be a cause.

[six45ive]

But why should the universe not need a reason?

 

Why should the universe need a reason to exist?

[[Matt]]

But why should the universe not need a reason.. a cause for it's existence, it is after all simply part of natures grand scheme in which everything has a cause.

Because it may have always existed...

[danot]

You've gone 38 pages and still not grasped it. There need not be a cause.

So let's look at the actual logic:- There need not be a cause because - Nothing(nothing being nothing)existed before the big bang.

 

There need not be a cause because - "Nothing"(nothing being something)isn't nothing when referring to the universe;"Nothing" is something... so could something have existed before the big bang?... No!, because nothing(which is nothing)existed before the big bang.

 

Could "Nothing"(which is something)have existed before the big bang?..No!.. because nothing(which is nothing)existed before the big bang:huh:

[Mercenary]

So let's look at the actual logic:- There need not be a cause because - Nothing(nothing being nothing)existed before the big bang.

 

There need not be a cause because - "Nothing"(nothing being something)isn't nothing when referring to the universe;"Nothing" is something... so could something have existed before the big bang?... No!, because nothing(which is nothing)existed before the big bang.

 

Could "Nothing"(which is something)have existed before the big bang?..No!.. because nothing(which is nothing)existed before the big bang:huh:

 

But again, you are applying our human concept of logic to something so far out of our understanding that it is pointless.

[danot]

Why should the universe need a reason to exist?

Why shouldn't it?.. everything else does.