we don't understand gravity, we don't understand consciousness.

without understanding these 2 there is no way we will understand the beginnings of the universe

tdgeek:

 

andrew75:

 

And if time began at the big bang, the concept of what was 'before' the big bang is not valid.

 

 

That would mean nothing existed. No space, and no time. But the singularity existed? What happened 2 seconds before? What existed 2 feet away prior to the Big Bang?

 

Again, I don't think the question is valid.  Time and space did not exist.  There is no "before", there is no "2 feet away".

andrew75:

 

 

 

Again, I don't think the question is valid.  Time and space did not exist.  There is no "before", there is no "2 feet away".

 

 

 

Links?

The progression of our Universe is well documented. The Big Bang Theory is a theory. It cannot be viewed no matter what telescopes are out there. Should we develop a telescope that is far superior to James Webb, you wont see it as there are no photons for 300,000 years later. All that existed was helium and hydrogen IIRC, hot, dense and dark. Im not sure how you can be so certain when the scientists are not, thats why its a theory. 

Ge0rge: I think you may be confusing the everyday use of the word "Theory" - a hunch or a guess, with the scientific version, which is just about the opposite. In science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

Well that may be your hypothesis.......

Ge0rge: I think you may be confusing the everyday use of the word "Theory" - a hunch or a guess, with the scientific version, which is just about the opposite. In science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

Im aware its widely accepted, but its not factual. What is factual is the progression of our Universe over its 13.75 B year history. Thats is all that has been tested. How did the Big Bang happen, why did it happen, its 100% unknown. Brian Cox talks about before the Big Bang, yet others say the Big Bang was the start of everything, space and time. He discusses how the Universe occurred before the Big bang. So there was no "Big Bang" as such. His words.

What is accepted is if you roll back time, you get to a point, hence the BB Theory. It must be true. I dont doubt that, what I do doubt is the source. A dot smaller than an atom (which didnt exist then) and virtually instantly everything exists. And everywhere, all at once, almost/literally. And in that dot, everything that exists today in the Universe, existed then.

Multi verses, cyclic expansion and contraction make more sense. Dr B talks of a black hole phenomena that was 6 billion times the size of our Sun in the early Universe, how did that get there? No one knows.

Yes, all the data from 380,000 years afterwards is known, zero is known before that, how or why, thats why its a theory. 380,000 years afterwards thats not a theory its widely accepted, a fact, and tested. Thats isnt the question

Ge0rge: Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

Also, thanks to scientific experiments conducted at the likes of CERN, we are able to replicate conditions some mere nano-seconds after the big bang - I think you will find your suggestion that we know nothing about pre-380,000 years is being confused with when electrons began to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms.

I am again confused? You keep repeating that. As if you are locked into a belief. Yes, how atoms formed when the post BB cooldown occurred is known, I was referring to why the BB happened, how it happened, what happened before it (As Brian Cox suggests) and did this smaller than an atom dot contain everything that exists in our 94 B lightyear diameter of the observable Universe?? Where did that come from? We do not know, that is a fact, we only have theories. 

tdgeek:

 

andrew75:

 

And if time began at the big bang, the concept of what was 'before' the big bang is not valid.

 

 

That would mean nothing existed. No space, and no time. But the singularity existed? What happened 2 seconds before? What existed 2 feet away prior to the Big Bang?

 

And to complicate it even further nothing is the only thing that can happen inside of nothing. Our Universe probably came into existence not only from nothing, but from nowhere.

What was before the big bang? Nothing! Not even space, and therefore not even time. There was no 2 seconds before, or 2 feet away. Our universe did not expand into space after the big bang, space itself was a tiny thing which was part of the big bang and included our universe and time. At the time of the big bang it started to stretch and expand and now here we are billions of years later talking on geekzone and we all somehow think we control our own thoughts and consciousness debating what kicked the whole process off! Thanks for starting this thread LOL.  Now you going to keep me up all night thinking about this stuff, I may just need to go and watch the original startrek series again.

Interesting BBC article on the subject.

What existed before the Big Bang? - BBC Future

Humans think within boundaries and patterns. We find it difficult to comprehend and define something with out boundaries, beginnings and ends. We must also look for patterns and patterns must be definable. A singularity is a point but we struggle to see it as a pattern and therefore struggle to define it.

The Big Bang nomenclature was an attempt to define the beginnings of our universe in the context of boundaries and patterns. The Big Expansion from a singularity within nano seconds is the best explanation but fails to define sufficient boundaries thus making it very difficult for human comprehension as the Universe is still expanding and thus struggles to find  us boundaries.

Negative and positive, Dark Matter and Light Matter can deal somewhat for the before and now.  

Good lord does that make sense? I don't know and i need some Paracetamol now, 

MikeB4:

 

Humans think within boundaries and patterns. We find it difficult to comprehend and define something with out boundaries, beginnings and ends. We must also look for patterns and patterns must be definable. A singularity is a point but we struggle to see it as a pattern and therefore struggle to define it.

 

The Big Bang nomenclature was an attempt to define the beginnings of our universe in the context of boundaries and patterns. The Big Expansion from a singularity within nano seconds is the best explanation but fails to define sufficient boundaries thus making it very difficult for human comprehension as the Universe is still expanding and thus struggles to find  us boundaries.

 

Negative and positive, Dark Matter and Light Matter can deal somewhat for the before and now.  

 

Good lord does that make sense? I don't know and i need some Paracetamol now, 

 

It makes sense. There is a Law of Conservation. You cannot create matter or remove it, it, whether that is energy or atoms or Elements, just moves to another form.

This breaks down with the Singularity. Was there a single dot that magically then contained all of the energy in the Universe, then it exploded? I.e. expanded rapidly. Or was it existing energy and matter from a Universe that collapsed?

The former is magic based on our boundary of knowledge. Or it may be a law of physics that we do not know about. There should be other Universes also 

If the latter, a collapsed and reborn Universe, there should be others

tdgeek:

 

Yes, all the data from 380,000 years afterwards is known, zero is known before that, how or why, thats why its a theory. 380,000 years afterwards thats not a theory its widely accepted, a fact, and tested. Thats isnt the question

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

The colloquial use of "Theory" is pretty much the exact opposite of the scientific usage.

sir1963:

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

 

 

 

The colloquial use of "Theory" is pretty much the exact opposite of the scientific usage.

 

Good point. A best estimate if you will. The explanation of the beginning is relevant, even though we cannot view the first 380,000 years but we can test that. It still begs the question where did the energy from that dot come from, which, arguably, is a layman's theory as its unknown, but made up of  opinions. Not a scientific theory as we cannot test where the energy came from.