Guest _mike Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 We have much scientific data in support of an expanding universe that exhibits measurable properties that indicate it arising from a singularity of a sort. As far as I am aware, we have scientific data that have lead to the belief that the four forces known in nature (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) were one before the gravitational force separated, followed by the other three forces, just before the "Big Bang". Is this singularity supposed to be the eternal universe prior to the "Big Bang" or does science point to something prior to this? Also, what data (if there are any) explain how this singularity underwent whatever it went through to result in the "Big Bang" and how can we support that this singularity was indeed all that there was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 The problem is that scientists can't test or calculate what was "before" the singularity. All the science we have is based on the laws of nature, phsyical realities and measurables. Time is defined by our Universe. Space is defined by our Universe. So space and time as we know it didn't exist before Planck Time. Of couse something did exist before it, and time (in a different form) existed before it, but it can't be measured or tested. It would be a "virtual time". So no one knows and whatever was it wasn't what we see now. It's like asking "what comes before 1?" and the answer is either nothing, 0 or 0.99999... etc The Big Bang Theory has been challenged a bit, because there has been some things that don't fit in into the theory, and there has been a couple of ideas that could potentially replace the BB theory if they prove to fit the evidence. For instacne The Brane Theory would indicate there are an infinite amount of energy between parallel universes. At least this is how I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Aye, it's my understanding the best guess we have at this point (and don't kid yourself, for all it may be slightly informed with a bit of evidence to back it up, our thoughts upon the origin and previous state(s) of the universe are simply guesses) is the universe has always existed in one form or another, with it's current state obviously being the most recent iteration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Well, we know there is some sort of origin. However, whether it could ever be described outside of a mathematical model is debatable. The problem in terms of there being multiple possible histories seems to indicate to me that, what ever the 'cause' was (if it could be called a 'cause' in any meaningful way in English), happened 'outside' our space time bubble... or maybe the Bentov model is right, and the crunch at the end fuels the bang at the start, so, in a way that is VERY hard to explain in 4 dimensional space where t can only be positive from our POV the 'origin' and 'death' of the universe is happening elsewhen but 'now' and all the time... doesn't mean time travel is possible, and certain geometric solutions of imaginary time seem to favour the ravings of an atheist mystic engineer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eccles Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 If one considers that humans have been searching for answers to the origin of the Universe ever since they took an interest in the night sky and for the sake of this discussion assume the Egyptians did start to develop some science in spite of the religion, we have got to the current stage of our knowledge in about 6,000 years. We have got as close as microseconds after the Big Bang. Science is based on facts and truth, not faith and beliefs like religion. Science knows when it cannot answer a question, but will strive to find the answer. One day Science will find the answer to the origin of the Universe. Meantime I pose this question: As matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore must have always existed, is it not logical to say the Universe(s) in one form or another have always existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts