Is the Big Bang necessarily the absolute 'beginning' of everything?

[Fanghur]

Lately I've been having some discussions with people online (theists), and one of the things that I find is almost invariably brought up on at least one occasion is that the Big Bang is supposedly, according to science, the absolute beginning of everything, and that this has been proven by something known as the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem. Now, I know that the latter comment is simply not true, as all three of those scientists have gone on record and clarified that their theorem only demonstrates that the expansion of our universe has a definite beginning, not necessarily existence itself.

 

But as for the Big Bang itself, I was always under the impression that all science has been able to say about it thus far is that it is the beginning of the universe in its current state, not necessarily the beginning of our universe in the absolute sense of the term (discounting the possibility, for the sake of argument, that our universe is only one of an infinite number of parallel universes, which if I'm not mistaken recently had some evidence found for it). That is to say, contrary to what the Kent Hovinds of the world would have the public believe, I have never heard any cosmologist or theoretical physicist make the claim that the universe actually did emerge out of a state of complete nothingness (in the most absolute possible sense of the term), and I personally think that such a thing is most likely a logical impossibility.

 

Is my understanding of the science more or less accurate? Or have I been misinformed?

[EdEarl]

I believe your interpretation is more or less correct.

 

Astronomers can only view objects in our universe, out to about 13.72 billion years. But, everywhere they look, the universe is not only receding; it is accelerating. Their conclusion is that the universe will continue to recede forever (whatever that means) towards infinite size (whatever that means). Moreover, they conjecture that running time backward would result in the universe becoming smaller and smaller until it becomes a point of energy; thus, they conclude a big bang started the universe. And, math suggests this story of the universe is correct.

 

Evidence of a multiverse is limited. Since the universe appears to be infinitely large and perhaps infinitely old (a contradictory idea see below), that an infinite number of universes similar to (or radically different from) ours may have banged into existence.

 

An infinitely old universe is contradictory because scientists agree that the big bang created both space and time; thus, the idea of infinite age of the multiverse is strange. But, infinity is a strange idea.

Upon rereading your post, found your question of "existence itself" is not addressed in my first post.

 

Observations of the Universe expansion accelerating have been formalized mathematically as an energy that stretches space-time. Moreover, virtual particles with antiparticles pop into existence and annihilate. Scientists believe the same energy that causes the Universe to expand creates virtual particles, and is the energy source of the big bang.

 

However, science can only observe, and explain what has been observed. It cannot answer metaphysical questions.

[robomont]

i thought i saw something last week about scientist finding other universes?

my most recent theory is we are surrounded by a shell of metallic hydrogen.at the edge of the universe.my own opinion is we are regulated by three physical laws.time .xrays and gravity.sorta.and all of nature wishes us to be whole atoms.so a cloud of hydrogen is ionized by xrays and gamma from a blackhole .this clumps into stars that create matter which then collapse.and wait to be recycled.because time and space are so large .the cycle is very slow.because there is always a difference in charge no matter where.there will always be motion.all of this is in a sea of hydrogen that at the outer edges has no energy so it is metallic.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

robomont,

Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is the Big Bang. Please do not post your personal theories or opinions, as this is considered 'thread hijacking', and it is against our rules (specifically section 2.5).

 

Everybody, responding to robomont's post is also thread hijacking. If you feel it is totally necessary to respond, then quote his post, copy it, and paste it into a new thread.

 

Please do not respond to this mod note. If you feel the need to discuss its contents, please use the "report" button at the bottom of this post.

[bassfrog007]

hello, i'm kinda new at this whole forum thing so please forgive me if i am in the wrong place for this theory/thought.

i was wondering has anyone ever considered the possibility that the big bang is not just the begining of our universe but may be the result of a previous universe that went all the way through it's life span getting eaten up by black holes then when the last two black holes try to " eat " eachother they cause the " big bang " and it just continues in an endless cycle. since from what i understand is that the only way to get a big bang is from an infinitaly small dense point in a void of nothing. and i think right now scientists believe that the center of a black hole is the same way.

 

my second theory is that if you look at the way atoms look you got the nucleus that is surrounded by protrons and electrons. this is also the format for our solar system and in turn the universe. so is it possible that our universe is nothing more than a atom that in turn is making up a larger body and the perceaved distance we think is there is nothing more than the empty space between our universe and the next universe...

thanks for any comments on this i'm still learning about this stuff so please forgive me if i'm not making much sense.

[EdEarl]

hello, i'm kinda new at this whole forum thing so please forgive me if i am in the wrong place for this theory/thought.

Hello, welcome to SFN

 

i was wondering has anyone ever considered the possibility that the big bang is not just the begining of our universe but may be the result of a previous universe that went all the way through it's life span getting eaten up by black holes then when the last two black holes try to " eat " eachother they cause the " big bang " and it just continues in an endless cycle. since from what i understand is that the only way to get a big bang is from an infinitaly small dense point in a void of nothing. and i think right now scientists believe that the center of a black hole is the same way.

Before 1998 there were two main hypothesis about the fate of the universe: 1) it would expand forever slower and slower and slower 2) it would expand till gravity caused everything back into the point of the big bang and there would be another big bang.

 

However, in 1998 two different teams of observing Type 1a supernova discovered the universe is accelerating, and that the universe will expand forever faster (unless another discovery rocks this hypothesis).

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

 

my second theory is that if you look at the way atoms look you got the nucleus that is surrounded by protrons and electrons. this is also the format for our solar system and in turn the universe. so is it possible that our universe is nothing more than a atom that in turn is making up a larger body and the perceaved distance we think is there is nothing more than the empty space between our universe and the next universe...

Although there are some similarities between atoms and solar systems, there are also many many differences. Quantum mechanics describes very small things,such as atoms, but says little about large scale things such as solar systems. Currently quantum mechanics and relativity are separate sciences, with active research trying to develop a "Theory of Everything" (TOE) that will link the two together.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

Edited June 7, 2013 by EdEarl

[bassfrog007]

thank you i will look into both of those more.