[Dave]

The accepted theory is that before the universe nothing existed not even light or darkness, but i like so many other people have to question this. if nothing did exist before the universe then how did the big bang occur? I feel that something can't come from nothing. There must have been some sort of mechanism to trigger it off. An analagy of this would be an atom, in one of these tiny objects there is a lot of energy, but to get that energy out it has to be through an external factor. The possibilities about what this could be are endless as it is impossible to prove.

My second point is there must be something now to fuel the growth of the universe it needs something to turn the potential energy into kinetic energy and to convert what lies outside the universe to what exists in it today.

[Freethinker]

Quote

Originally posted by: Dave
The accepted theory is that before the universe nothing existed not even light or darkness, but i like so many other people have to question this.

Hi Dave, welcome.

While the topic is always intriguing, we need to correct some of your basic assertions first.

I don't know what group you refer to when you assert that "before the universe nothing existed not even light or darkness". But every cosmological physicist I have ever read does NOT accept this. The most that any of them say about what might have existed before the start of our current physical existence is that "we CAN'T KNOW". Add to this the basic, indisputable law that energy can not be created nor destroyed would prove that no valid scientist woould claim somehting that contradicted it. I do not know of a single respected scientist in a directly related field that states NOTHING existed before the BB. The only time we typically find this claim is when someone is inventing a Straw Man argument fallacy.

Quote

if nothing did exist before the universe then how did the big bang occur?

And since we do not say that "nothing existed before the BB", the question is not valid.

Quote

I feel that something can't come from nothing.

Science agrees. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed".

Quote

There must have been some sort of mechanism to trigger it off.

QM deals with this. The Uncertainty Principle lets us understand how, and therefore WHY there can not be an "Intellegent first cause".

Quote

An analagy of this would be an atom, in one of these tiny objects there is a lot of energy, but to get that energy out it has to be through an external factor.

this is contradictory to QM/ Uncertainty. The release of energy in specific atoms in radioactive elements is shown to NOT have any external factor.

Quote

The possibilities about what this could be are endless as it is impossible to prove.

There therefore are no possibilities.

Quote

My second point is there must be something now to fuel the growth of the universe it needs something to turn the potential energy into kinetic energy and to convert what lies outside the universe to what exists in it today.

Energy is energy. IT does not in and of itself differentiate between potential and kenetic. We do.

As to what does/ might/ could exist "outside the universe". We don't know that there is an "outside the universe". though blackholes are often considered a potential portal.

[kwackett]

there was no time outside the universe (if you agree that there was something outside the universe). how can you say what's before the universe?

[GAHD]

http://www.sciam.com...4F483414B7F0000


New article in this month's scientific American. it deals with the "before time".

[Freethinker]

Thanks for the link GAHD, why not let us know either some of what it says or what you think about it. Otherwise all we get is links and links and links, with no discussion.

[GAHD]

"Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence" -Sci-am the aforementioned link.

My comment is self contained, it is nothing more than an informative resource untill further testing provides proof. The article was posted for the fact that it has relevance to the conversation, and that it indicated the universe(and time) was in existance prior to the big bang. It also holds true to membraine theory.
As to what was actually in existance prior to the universe, I venture a guess that there were mutiple sigularities like the one that created our universe, and that these sigularities caused a omni-directional pull on the sigularity of our universe causing it to fracture and expand into the universe we can see today.

[Freethinker]

Quote

Originally posted by: GAHD
"Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but ...

This is part of what I love about Science. It is ALWAYS evaluating every new detail it can get it's hands on in order to refine it's understanding of itself. Nothing is EVER cast in stone :-) nothing is ever asserted to be some perfect knowledge. locked in time as never to change or be critically evaluated.

And what we learn is so much more spectacular then anything we could have imagined. Operating under "laws" that we can only deal with mathematically. Yet they serve as tools for accurate predictions.

We can throw two hunks of metal, billions of miles and land within yards of where we wanted to. Then these hunks of metal unfold into vehicles that can wander around and get us more info! How cool is that?

But that is just Science, we KNOW it has no substance, that it takes faith rather than mathematical formulas for the Mars rovers to do what they did. That pi=3.0 is close enough.

Quote

My comment is self contained, it is nothing more than an informative resource untill further testing provides proof. The article was posted for the fact that it has relevance to the conversation, and that it indicated the universe(and time) was in existance prior to the big bang. It also holds true to membraine theory.

And inflation! Yes it was an interesting and enjoyable. Lots of good new details. I never gave up on Super Strings. Glad to see they are being so resilient.

Quote

As to what was actually in existance prior to the universe, I venture a guess that there were mutiple sigularities like the one that created our universe, and that these sigularities caused a omni-directional pull on the sigularity of our universe causing it to fracture and expand into the universe we can see today.

Fluctuating vaccuum. Either gives perturbation as existence.

[Abd Almalik]

before that... is the world new?! how sure are we? if the world began from nothing surely there is a creator have the knowledge who is God

before the bigbang there should be a "fule" supposed to be an atom in an unknown way...we can NOT get a step after that...

[Tormod]

Quote

Originally posted by: Abd Almalik
before that... is the world new?! how sure are we? if the world began from nothing surely there is a creator have the knowledge who is God

Huh? How did "surely" this enter into this equation?

Quote

before the bigbang there should be a "fule" supposed to be an atom in an unknown way...we can NOT get a step after that...

I assume you mean "fuel", and a "step *before* that" (because we do know what happened just *after* the big bang - or at least we can calculate what happened within a reasonable probability).

How do you know *for certain* that we cannot learn something from before the big bang? Which sources are you using for your claims?

Tormod

[Tormod]

If the poll is to be taken seriously (which I assume it is not, with the cornfield and all) I would at least add a couple of options:

"A universe which went through a big crunch"
"A universe in which ours was born"
"A black hole out of which our universe grew"
"Don't know"

There are a thousand theories and probably more possibilites.

Tormod

[Tormod]

By the way, having lived in Illinois I sincerely hope there wasn't a cornfield before our universe...they are innately _boring_.

(Except if you watched the "Children of the Corn").

Tormod

[harmoniouschaos]

By your measurements - an infinetly smaller universe. Much like the one in question, this universe started from *zero* and increased *forever*. The speed of which the galaxies moved apart from each other decreased over time, though never quite stopped. Instantaneously more and more matter filled this universe, but at a faster rate than the rate of expansion - eventually this universe was filled to a point of singularity. The big bang happened.

[nick33]

"Science agrees. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed". "

If this holds than the energy is finite. What makes the energy/the mass/ of the universe finite?

[Freethinker]

Quote

Originally posted by: harmoniouschaos
By your measurements - an infinetly smaller universe. Much like the one in question, this universe started from *zero* and increased *forever*. The speed of which the galaxies moved apart from each other decreased over time, though never quite stopped.

We don't know this. There is much that suggests that the universe has/ is accelerating in it's expansion rate.

Quote

Instantaneously more and more matter filled this universe,

And it wasn't "Instantaneously". We find that there was a definate passage of time. Perhaps billionths of what we currently consider a secound, but time did pass.

Quote

but at a faster rate than the rate of expansion

As the "rate of expansion" of the universe is based on "matter filling" it, the rate of expansion can not be seperated from the expansion of matter.

Quote

- eventually this universe was filled to a point of singularity. The big bang happened.

This does not make sense.

[Freethinker]

Quote

Originally posted by: nick33
"Science agrees. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed". "

If this holds than the energy is finite. What makes the energy/the mass/ of the universe finite?

How can energy be finite if it has no beginning nor end (can not be created nor destroyed).