ChatterBank2 mins ago
The Theists Will Love This Lol !! :-)
99 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by RATTER15. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I like this theory.
The idea of "existed forever" is easier to get one's head around than the idea of "point of singularity of infinite density".
Not easy. Just easiER.
I never grasped how there could be such a thing as "infinite density". Or how all the matter in the universe (which, they tell us, is pretty big) could have been compressed into one infinitely small singularity.
It's just plain wrong!
So, lets say it, here and now, on AB ... the Big Bang Theory is just piffle. The universe clearly existed forever. Or it was made by God. And God existed forever. One or the other.
It's just one of those things that we will never understand. Like why people choose to live in Eastbourne.
The idea of "existed forever" is easier to get one's head around than the idea of "point of singularity of infinite density".
Not easy. Just easiER.
I never grasped how there could be such a thing as "infinite density". Or how all the matter in the universe (which, they tell us, is pretty big) could have been compressed into one infinitely small singularity.
It's just plain wrong!
So, lets say it, here and now, on AB ... the Big Bang Theory is just piffle. The universe clearly existed forever. Or it was made by God. And God existed forever. One or the other.
It's just one of those things that we will never understand. Like why people choose to live in Eastbourne.
I've limited time to take that in, in work, but I think I'd need a better explanation anyway.
There is no need to take analogies literally, indeed it is important not to, so why the need to bring a person blowing up the balloon into the picture at all ? For sure we look for the reason for space creation but that's a different thing.
I don't see explained why there is a suggestion that if reversing all the space creation that we don't get to a single small area where everything is. An area, or even a singularity, which implies an expansion of something (everything) from nothing.
There is no need to take analogies literally, indeed it is important not to, so why the need to bring a person blowing up the balloon into the picture at all ? For sure we look for the reason for space creation but that's a different thing.
I don't see explained why there is a suggestion that if reversing all the space creation that we don't get to a single small area where everything is. An area, or even a singularity, which implies an expansion of something (everything) from nothing.
Part of the problem with the Big Bang Theory is that, in some sense, the "infinite density" region almost certainly never existed. Beyond a certain scale quantum effects will have prevented that point from occurring. Infinite density regions are implied all over the place in Classical physics (here's a simple example: Newton's gravity, which among other things typically treats everything as a point-like mass ie infinitely dense. While you can get around that, the point is that in a picture that isn't the full story you will deal with infinitely-whatever things all the time).
I scanned over the paper a few days ago and can't say I followed it properly, but at any rate it's certainly too early in the research to be saying "ha! no Big Bang!". At any rate, more precisely they are saying no singularity at the beginning of the Universe, but this is an attempt to deal with the first 10^{-30} seconds or so of the early Universe; most of the actual physics of the Big Bang concerns what happened afterwards.
One thing I'll be interested to see later on is whether or not this "no beginning" idea turns out to be a relic of the coordinate system they were using, rather than an "actual" infinitely-old Universe. I expect they probably covered it already, but it's an interesting point anyway. General Relativity is very fuzzy on what counts as "time", it being relegated to just part of spacetime. As soon as you do that, how you measure or define time becomes flexible, with the effect that different measurements will give you different answers for how long something takes to happen.
The simplest example of this is when you measure how long something takes to reach the centre of a (Schwartzschild) Black Hole. In the most natural choice of coordinates, you never do (taking infinitely long to get there). In another choice you do in a finite amount of time. These things are very fiddly, anyway.
I scanned over the paper a few days ago and can't say I followed it properly, but at any rate it's certainly too early in the research to be saying "ha! no Big Bang!". At any rate, more precisely they are saying no singularity at the beginning of the Universe, but this is an attempt to deal with the first 10^{-30} seconds or so of the early Universe; most of the actual physics of the Big Bang concerns what happened afterwards.
One thing I'll be interested to see later on is whether or not this "no beginning" idea turns out to be a relic of the coordinate system they were using, rather than an "actual" infinitely-old Universe. I expect they probably covered it already, but it's an interesting point anyway. General Relativity is very fuzzy on what counts as "time", it being relegated to just part of spacetime. As soon as you do that, how you measure or define time becomes flexible, with the effect that different measurements will give you different answers for how long something takes to happen.
The simplest example of this is when you measure how long something takes to reach the centre of a (Schwartzschild) Black Hole. In the most natural choice of coordinates, you never do (taking infinitely long to get there). In another choice you do in a finite amount of time. These things are very fiddly, anyway.
JJ: things like a singularity are just a projection into the physical world of the maths. So the maths indicates that at certain levels matter cannot resist gravity and then you have a singularity. There is overwealming evidence of their existance, now but initially they where just a mathematical prediction. There is no battle between science and religion, just a parallel line of reasoning. Science continually tries to understand and shoot down it's own theories. Reigion merely has "faith" in abitrary doctrines from any one of group of deities. I prefer the former as being closer to the real explanation.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Is There Any Good Reason Why This...
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Isn't It Good To Hear That Another...
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.