What came before the big bang?

[Cockaigne]

The more I read up on the universe it always ends up at one point. The Big Bang. So could be the universe is infinitely contracting and expanding.

But, all this energy, what created it in the first place. The universe is governed by laws, energy, balance etc, is the real implication this just came about. Because a computer and universe seem to be very similar, the code that a computer uses is found in different formats throughout the universe and repeated.

In summary, can we really believe that nothing created something?

[Blackpuddin]

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

[SpeckledJim]

Blackpuddin said:

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

Yes. Everything that can be known is already known.

Knowledge and discovery? Completed it mate.

[EliseNick]

Well, of course we don't really know. But in the general relativistic picture there was no time before the big bang. In black holes time becomes space-like, and space becomes time-like. Presumably the singularity at the beginning of the Universe had similar properties. So it's a bit like asking what's north of the North Pole. The coordinate system makes that a nonsensical question.

[Blackpuddin]

SpeckledJim said:

Blackpuddin said:

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

Yes. Everything that can be known is already known.

Knowledge and discovery? Completed it mate.

I take that point and get the logarithmic increase in our learning speed, I shouldn't have said 'ever' I suppose but our experts seem utterly set on this big bang theory. Surely we need to discover and embrace other ideas that get us past the 'something from nothing' dead-end.

[Fusion777]

Blackpuddin said:

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

Why have you got expert in inverted commas? What are your proposed improvements to the scientific method that will help move us on quicker and more reliably?

[SpeckledJim]

Blackpuddin said:

SpeckledJim said:

Blackpuddin said:

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

Yes. Everything that can be known is already known.

Knowledge and discovery? Completed it mate.

I take that point and get the logarithmic increase in our learning speed, I shouldn't have said 'ever' I suppose but our experts seem utterly set on this big bang theory. Surely we need to discover and embrace other ideas that get us past the 'something from nothing' dead-end.

They’re ‘utterly set on it’ because it’s the only thing that explains what we know.

If there was an alternative which also fits with what we know, then we’d be working on that too. But AFAIK, there isn’t.

[Cockaigne]

I think time doesn't matter, I mean to photons it doesn't really exist.

I think if the big bang exists, then what created the situation in the first place, has to exist? What created this situation boils down to.

A creator
A infinite loop (bit again nothing in nature seems to exist in this state)
A infinite riding on the back of turtle situation
matter just pops into exist? Again though from where?

[SpeckledJim]

Cockaigne said:

I think time doesn't matter, I mean to photons it doesn't really exist.

I think if the big bang exists, then what created the situation in the first place, has to exist? What created this situation boils down to.

A creator
A infinite loop (bit again nothing in nature seems to exist in this state)
A infinite riding on the back of turtle situation
matter just pops into exist? Again though from where?

If it’s an ‘infinite loop’ then EVERYTHING in nature exists in this state. Just not in a way that’s easy for us to get our stupid blink-of-an-eye heads around.

[Blackpuddin]

What's outside it?

[SpeckledJim]

Blackpuddin said:

What's outside it?

I don’t know. I’ll be delighted if science can tell me before my time is up.

[anonymous-user]

SpeckledJim said:

Blackpuddin said:

What's outside it?

I don’t know. I’ll be delighted if science can tell me before my time is up.

This is PH, somebody will have the answer, followed by somebody else to tell them they are WRONG!!!

[motco]

SpeckledJim said:

Blackpuddin said:

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

Yes. Everything that can be known is already known.

Knowledge and discovery? Completed it mate.

You're not saying that the science is settled, surely?

[Cockaigne]

It is coming up with a theory, then saying yes can't explain that bit, but it is o.k doesn't matter.

I'm not religious but the more you look at things, it just points to something writing code/rules.

[Caddyshack]

Fascinating subject and I think that if we look back over the last 300-500 years we can see how our understanding has accelerated but those 500 yrs isn’t even a blink of an eye in time compared to even human history..sadly, it is likely to be way beyond our lifetime to find the answer or maybe humans don’t even have the intelligence?

[Cockaigne]

I think the great emphasis to make theories that exclude are creator , make the theories biased.

Things like infinite time, contracting expanding infinite loop, in one swift rule out anything writing rules, but the more we advance computers, the more computers seem to be the answer to what the universe is, it just seems designed in the same way.

[SpeckledJim]

Cockaigne said:

It is coming up with a theory, then saying yes can't explain that bit, but it is o.k doesn't matter.

I'm not religious but the more you look at things, it just points to something writing code/rules.

It’s doesn’t pretend to be a ‘Theory of Everything’

If you can point out where it is wrong then you’ll be famous.

Ignoring good science in favour of ‘it’s something writing rules’ is basically the definition of religious.

[Blackpuddin]

motco said:

SpeckledJim said:

Blackpuddin said:

This is the bit that every 'expert' (B Cox etc) skirts around. Whatever theory anyone ever comes up with will always come a cropper on this point.

Yes. Everything that can be known is already known.

Knowledge and discovery? Completed it mate.

You're not saying that the science is settled, surely?

whoosh parrot aisle three!

[Cockaigne]

SpeckledJim said:

Ignoring good science in favour of ‘it’s something writing rules’ is basically the definition of religious.

no it isn't, it is just common sense. There is a great push to think that everything just happens, hence no one can say what was before the BB, becuase it is tidier to say nothing. But religion as we have known it is clearly not based on science, to say that universe code was written, rules etc, makes something create, doesn't make a religion, just makes it make more sense.

The creator, the same as a black hole not being a hole, or universe expanding, when it isn't really, the creator could just tie up a lot of questions, it is term itself NOT founded in any religion.

[Blackpuddin]

Caddyshack said:

Fascinating subject and I think that if we look back over the last 300-500 years we can see how our understanding has accelerated but those 500 yrs isn’t even a blink of an eye in time compared to even human history..sadly, it is likely to be way beyond our lifetime to find the answer or maybe humans don’t even have the intelligence?

That's my take on it. Not so much intelligence as having the capability to think outside the box times a zillion. There'll probably be innumerable civilisations that have sussed it out but will we ever be on that level? Hmm. Maybe AI will take us somewhere nearer to it if it doesn't kill us first.