Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: cheryl j on 17/03/2014 14:17:13
-
Some friends of mine were having a discussion about this, and not being that knowledgeable about physics, I had little to add, but I did wonder about some of their assertions.
This was the original question that started the discussion:
"So let's say the Universe started as a quantum singularity, an energy-neutral vacuum tunneling event leading to a Big Bang or Big Smear or Big Whatever. And it's been all downhill since then....
That tunneling event occurred because of the laws of quantum mechanics, right? The laws of physics are responsible for creation.
But means that these laws existed *before* the Big Event. So...where did they exist? Where were they kept?
And why those laws, and not some other?"
From there the discussion went off in a variety of directions, some involving multiverses, meta-laws, the law of Fecundity, the Platonic realm, and prime movers, ie God (of course.)
What I'm wondering is does the question even make sense in the first place? Does it make sense to talk about laws existing "before" or apart from the physical things they refer to?
While googling stuff, I did see this comment from Stephen Hawking “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
Does Hawking's comment support my friend's statement, contradict it, or neither?
-
While googling stuff, I did see this comment from Stephen Hawking “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
I have argued in other threads that there cannot ever have been nothing, otherwise there would be nothing now. I am going to avoid possibly muddying the the waters by coming in with that at this point, but what I would say is that "nothing" in this sort of context, rarely means absolutely nothing. Scientific "nothing" tends to be a bit "somethingy"
-
At present I don't think anyone can determine what happened at or just immediately after the big bang. That is all anyone can say for certain.
-
There may have been nothing before the big bang but nothing refers to this universe we are in, what lies outside it nobody can currently know.
I believe the laws of physics are standard personally. Its like saying 2+2 isnt 4 no matter what universe your in that cannot change. I think the answer to everything lies in maths and the universe we live in is basically a mathmatical model.
-
I think the answer to everything lies in maths and the universe we live in is basically a mathmatical model.
From a different perspective, one could argue that it just happens that mathematics is the best "language" we have yet discovered to help us understand the Universe.
Words can also do a good job in describing the Universe. In fact, they are needed to "support" the maths; but no one says that the Universe is a linguistic model.
-
Yep it needs 'laws'. But, it doesn't need to be recognizable as the laws we see here. I think 'properties' is a better name for it myself. As long as we think that we can draw conclusions to a beginning from experiments done today we presume the 'laws' defining it to have (pre)existed then too, defining our universe. On the other hand you can't exclude different initial parameters being possible for what will become a SpaceTime. As soon as a arrow is introduced you must find laws and repeatable experiments. Without those you get to a magic universe, and that one have no logic what so ever. If it was Heinlein or Asimov that wrote that sufficient advanced magic is inseparable from advanced science I don't remember, but it is still wrong. Science will have a logic, magic won't.
-
If it was Heinlein or Asimov that wrote that sufficient advanced magic is inseparable from advanced science
I think it was Arthur C Clarke; and it was the other way round.
-
:)
heh, been some time since I read it, and it took me some time to see where it lead me wrong too.
-
:)
heh, been some time since I read it, and it took me some time to see where it lead me wrong too.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-
I think my friend's point was that some how information in the platonic form per-existed the physical.I think he was implying that somehow information or knowledge is the basis of everything. But I don't see how physical laws can be separate from the physical things they describe. And I was just wondering what other people thought about this.
-
problem is, there never was a Big Bang!
I find it most of the time hilarious and amusing if students or worse scientists',
tell me with a straight face that someting did rise out of 'nothing'.
They don't understand it, they don't get it, they are only indoctrinated with this
ridiculous theory! But hey! quit! the Emperor has no clothes!
-
problem is, there never was a Big Bang!
I find it most of the time hilarious and amusing if students or worse scientists',
tell me with a straight face that someting did rise out of 'nothing'.
They don't understand it, they don't get it, they are only indoctrinated with this
ridiculous theory! But hey! quit! the Emperor has no clothes!
It seems to me that the joke is on you because there is nothing wrong with the idea of something arising out of nothing. Scientists like myself laugh when people make the kinds of comments that you just made. You assume that the laws of physics require something to arise out of something else. However its conceivable that the laws of physics were not always the same and that there was a time when something could arise out of nothing.
There is a theory called the "zero-energy universe" theory which states that the total energy of the universe is now and has always been zero. The positive energy comes from rest energy and kinetic energy while the negative energy comes from gravitational potential energy - the total sum equaling zero. According to the relation E = mc^2 this means we can have a universe created out of nothing even if we assume that the laws of physics have always been the same as they are now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Please ask and learn before you laugh at things you don't understand. When scientists come up with these ideas and it passes muster among scientists then there's a damn good reason for it.
-
It seems to me that the joke is on you because there is nothing wrong with the idea of something arising out of nothing. Scientists like myself laugh when people make the kinds of comments that you just made. You assume that the laws of physics require something to arise out of something else. However its conceivable that the laws of physics were not always the same and that there was a time when something could arise out of nothing.
There is a theory called the "zero-energy universe" theory which states that the total energy of the universe is now and has always been zero. The positive energy comes from rest energy and kinetic energy while the negative energy comes from gravitational potential energy - the total sum equaling zero. According to the relation E = mc^2 this means we can have a universe created out of nothing even if we assume that the laws of physics have always been the same as they are now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Please ask and learn before you laugh at things you don't understand. When scientists come up with these ideas and it passes muster among scientists then there's a damn good reason for it.
still another enormous good laugh! o man o man, i have learned this ridiculous things when I studied physics/math at a university.So , saying that I don't 'understand' it is really a bit cheap and dumb and what have you.
I know you take all this crap seriously because you have 'studieeeeed' and are indoctrinated with this crap and are not able to see how dumb it all is.
Come on now, you are using a very very strange and dumb method.
Because it is all very strange, creating something out of nothing, you, just with a slight of hand, do the following:
However its conceivable that the laws of physics were not always the same and that there was a time when something could arise out of nothing.[/color]
and voila! your problem is solved.
Wel, you just proved to me how stupid it all is!
maybe read some good books who dare to be critical about all this nonsense.
yeah yeah. I know you have to defend your belief system for economic reasons.
Because it is conceivable that the laws of physics change when I want I can levitate!
Come on, put some good thinking in this!
But I know you can't because school is for making children dumb ( no joke!)
-
It seems to me that the joke is on you because there is nothing wrong with the idea of something arising out of nothing. Scientists like myself laugh when people make the kinds of comments that you just made. You assume that the laws of physics require something to arise out of something else. However its conceivable that the laws of physics were not always the same and that there was a time when something could arise out of nothing.
There is a theory called the "zero-energy universe" theory which states that the total energy of the universe is now and has always been zero. The positive energy comes from rest energy and kinetic energy while the negative energy comes from gravitational potential energy - the total sum equaling zero. According to the relation E = mc^2 this means we can have a universe created out of nothing even if we assume that the laws of physics have always been the same as they are now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Please ask and learn before you laugh at things you don't understand. When scientists come up with these ideas and it passes muster among scientists then there's a damn good reason for it.
still another enormous good laugh! o man o man, i have learned this ridiculous things when I studied physics/math at a university.So , saying that I don't 'understand' it is really a bit cheap and dumb and what have you.
I know you take all this crap seriously because you have 'studieeeeed' and are indoctrinated with this crap and are not able to see how dumb it all is.
Come on now, you are using a very very strange and dumb method.
Because it is all very strange, creating something out of nothing, you, just with a slight of hand, do the following:
However its conceivable that the laws of physics were not always the same and that there was a time when something could arise out of nothing.[/color]
and voila! your problem is solved.
Wel, you just proved to me how stupid it all is!
maybe read some good books who dare to be critical about all this nonsense.
yeah yeah. I know you have to defend your belief system for economic reasons.
Because it is conceivable that the laws of physics change when I want I can levitate!
Come on, put some good thinking in this!
But I know you can't because school is for making children dumb ( no joke!)
I always believe in looking at data to verify things for myself. I had up until recently thought that instead of the universe expanding more and more rapidly it was actually slowing down. So I looked at the data and did my own calculations using a logical approach and in fact found the theory of increasing expansion velocity 100% valid. I had been looking at the data the wrong way round which is easy to do when the data goes backward in time. This means that the universe is highly likely to have originated from a source that may or may not have been singular but it strongly indicates a big bang event. You can determine this for yourself by properly analyzing the redshift data. Things can work out to be right even if counter-intuitive. If you feel as you do then put the evidence together and have it peer reviewed. It is no use just laughing at professionals because in the end the laugh is on you.
-
I always believe in looking at data to verify things for myself. I had up until recently thought that instead of the universe expanding more and more rapidly it was actually slowing down. So I looked at the data and did my own calculations using a logical approach and in fact found the theory of increasing expansion velocity 100% valid. I had been looking at the data the wrong way round which is easy to do when the data goes backward in time. This means that the universe is highly likely to have originated from a source that may or may not have been singular but it strongly indicates a big bang event. You can determine this for yourself by properly analyzing the redshift data. Things can work out to be right even if counter-intuitive. If you feel as you do then put the evidence together and have it peer reviewed. It is no use just laughing at professionals because in the end the laugh is on you.
Well, I am still laughing because it still is idiotic to say the least.
And especially 'professionals' don't really get it.
Now, what you wrote above, well, why should I believe you?
I can write exactly tne same in reverse, stating I have done calculations bla bla bla
and I have seen there is no 'expansion". Now what?
It is even more then idiotic that you won't adress the difficulty from
'nothing' to 'something" Furthermore, can't you be the victim of your own
beliefsystem, so that 'data' that didn't fit is ignored, (That does happen unconsciously), and there is so much more. You see I can't take what you write seriously. If I had done the same you would say that also. And rightly so!
Now, as far as the more than hilariouss Big Bang goes, well, offcourse one gets a Big Bang if one discards all data that doesn't validate this nonsense,
I am now not referring to you now , but to the official magazines of this fairy tale.
You see, 'science' isn't ment to find truth but is ment to bend the truth!.
Otherwise science would have been far far more progressed.So you see,
´science` is holding us back while in the same time we are indoctrinated to think it is progressing.
Now, how come again, that ´something´ can arise from ´nothing`?
yes, I am still laughing and louder with every posting.
that´s ok, I like that.
-
it is conceivable that the laws of physics change when I want I can levitate!
I would certainly appreciate a video of that!
Then I would have to conceive of some laws of physics to change...
Please upload the video to YouTube, and insert the link here!
-
I want to say this site Very quick to read a lot of the same by this section must admit that it would be very good.
-
it is conceivable that the laws of physics change when I want I can levitate!
I would certainly appreciate a video of that!
Then I would have to conceive of some laws of physics to change...
Please upload the video to YouTube, and insert the link here!
lol
you don't get it, do you?
I am stating the same as one other does, but know it has to be seen as ridiculous,
o man o man. a lot of people here have very rigid belief systems.
(In the mean time, please show me a video of the Biggie Bangie,I bet you can't!
o man this is really more then ridiculous,
Anyway I have always a lot of fun when I see people trying to defend a more then ridiculous an very rigid belief system ( that is 'science')
-
I want to say this site Very quick to read a lot of the same by this section must admit that it would be very good.
really?
-
here something to chew on!
Big Bang Never Happened Home Page and Summary
In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ (http://bigbangneverhappened.org/)
I always ask myself the question why 'scientists' and 'professors' are always so extremely dumb, and close minded. The answer is simple, 'science' is just like a 'religion'
Now, please pray everyday to your school or university, really, that helps!
-
I always believe in looking at data to verify things for myself. I had up until recently thought that instead of the universe expanding more and more rapidly it was actually slowing down. So I looked at the data and did my own calculations using a logical approach and in fact found the theory of increasing expansion velocity 100% valid. I had been looking at the data the wrong way round which is easy to do when the data goes backward in time. This means that the universe is highly likely to have originated from a source that may or may not have been singular but it strongly indicates a big bang event. You can determine this for yourself by properly analyzing the redshift data. Things can work out to be right even if counter-intuitive. If you feel as you do then put the evidence together and have it peer reviewed. It is no use just laughing at professionals because in the end the laugh is on you.
Well, I am still laughing because it still is idiotic to say the least.
And especially 'professionals' don't really get it.
Now, what you wrote above, well, why should I believe you?
I can write exactly tne same in reverse, stating I have done calculations bla bla bla
and I have seen there is no 'expansion". Now what?
It is even more then idiotic that you won't adress the difficulty from
'nothing' to 'something" Furthermore, can't you be the victim of your own
beliefsystem, so that 'data' that didn't fit is ignored, (That does happen unconsciously), and there is so much more. You see I can't take what you write seriously. If I had done the same you would say that also. And rightly so!
Now, as far as the more than hilariouss Big Bang goes, well, offcourse one gets a Big Bang if one discards all data that doesn't validate this nonsense,
I am now not referring to you now , but to the official magazines of this fairy tale.
You see, 'science' isn't ment to find truth but is ment to bend the truth!.
Otherwise science would have been far far more progressed.So you see,
´science` is holding us back while in the same time we are indoctrinated to think it is progressing.
Now, how come again, that ´something´ can arise from ´nothing`?
yes, I am still laughing and louder with every posting.
that´s ok, I like that.
Firstly, where did I say something could come out of nothing? Secondly, I am agnostic. I don't care either way. Whichever is true is fine by me. However, a compelling theory with much experimental evidence and verifiable data would be needed to overturn current theory. That is just the way it is. So much evidence points to a big bang that it is hard to argue against and believe me I have tried to argue that case in the past. Now I have actually changed my opinion.
-
Firstly, where did I say something could come out of nothing? Secondly, I am agnostic. I don't care either way. Whichever is true is fine by me. However, a compelling theory with much experimental evidence and verifiable data would be needed to overturn current theory. That is just the way it is. So much evidence points to a big bang that it is hard to argue against and believe me I have tried to argue that case in the past. Now I have actually changed my opinion.
Wel, if one beliefs in a Biggie Bangiie someting has come out of nothing ;)
Agnostic? ok, so? what are you saying?
And 'this is just the way is is'???? yes, If one surpress all information that
leads to something else.
And as it seems you haven't seen or read the website about this?
The whole Biggie Bangie is more than ridiculous. it has never existed.
The whole theory is full of enormous Big Holes.
sorry, this is the way it is. ;)
-
Firstly, where did I say something could come out of nothing? Secondly, I am agnostic. I don't care either way. Whichever is true is fine by me. However, a compelling theory with much experimental evidence and verifiable data would be needed to overturn current theory. That is just the way it is. So much evidence points to a big bang that it is hard to argue against and believe me I have tried to argue that case in the past. Now I have actually changed my opinion.
Wel, if one beliefs in a Biggie Bangiie someting has come out of nothing ;)
Agnostic? ok, so? what are you saying?
And 'this is just the way is is'???? yes, If one surpress all information that
leads to something else.
And as it seems you haven't seen or read the website about this?
The whole Biggie Bangie is more than ridiculous. it has never existed.
The whole theory is full of enormous Big Holes.
sorry, this is the way it is. ;)
This might be of interest, especially the COBE data.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
And this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"2014 Researchers collaborating on the BICEP2 experiment announce the detection of the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation.[34]"
Or is this all smoke and mirrors too. Real data, real evidence.
-
This might be of interest, especially the COBE data.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
And this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"2014 Researchers collaborating on the BICEP2 experiment announce the detection of the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation.[34]"
Or is this all smoke and mirrors too. Real data, real evidence.
I will look into this, however, I dont trust wikipedia one bit, because wikipedia is used to guard mainstreamscience bullshit. that is, it is a gatekeeper.
So, we wll see if it is 'real data, real evidence'
However, you have already assumed that that is so.
May I ask on what grounds?
and have you read the website about there being no Biggie Bangie?
I think I know....
-
This might be of interest, especially the COBE data.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
And this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"2014 Researchers collaborating on the BICEP2 experiment announce the detection of the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation.[34]"
Or is this all smoke and mirrors too. Real data, real evidence.
I will look into this, however, I dont trust wikipedia one bit, because wikipedia is used to guard mainstreamscience bullshit. that is, it is a gatekeeper.
So, we wll see if it is 'real data, real evidence'
However, you have already assumed that that is so.
May I ask on what grounds?
and have you read the website about there being no Biggie Bangie?
I think I know....
Yes I have read the website. Not thoroughly but I get the gist. Yes it is a very interesting idea and I have thought of similar things in the past. I could never get anything else to explain the redshift. It's not just the redshift but the fact that the galaxies have evident velocities. In a static universe this is difficult to explain unless the system is oscillating between an expanding and contracting state. If this view was to hold there would be a rippling effect in the collected data. If the universe where infinite then the wavelength of an oscillation would have to extend beyond the visible size of the universe which would be very inconvenient evidentially. How could it ever be proved?
-
still another enormous good laugh!
I don't know what your goal in saying things like that is but the more you do the more I can see how little you understand of science, especially the Big Bang Theory. It's readily clear by the way you speak of it as if you were a child. Physicists in this forum such as JP and myself have many years experience dealing with people who act like you. In all cases, in the end you have all contributed nothing to the forum other than to waste everyone's time. In fact it's been clear from the start that your real problem is with scientists themselves. Jealousy I would guess.
The problem is that your lack of understanding of both science, scientists and the job they do, how they do it, the logic and philosophy they're trained in using. So far I've seen nothing like that from you. You've proven you know nothing about science or nature and therefore you're unable to post anything of any real value or use to anybody. Not one person has gained anything from anything you've said in this thread so far. Go away and come back when you've learned more about science or you've decided to be less of child and stop insulting those who are trying to help you.
-
I always believe in looking at data to verify things for myself. I had up until recently thought that instead of the universe expanding more and more rapidly it was actually slowing down. So I looked at the data and did my own calculations using a logical approach and in fact found the theory of increasing expansion velocity 100% valid. I had been looking at the data the wrong way round which is easy to do when the data goes backward in time. This means that the universe is highly likely to have originated from a source that may or may not have been singular but it strongly indicates a big bang event. You can determine this for yourself by properly analyzing the redshift data. Things can work out to be right even if counter-intuitive. If you feel as you do then put the evidence together and have it peer reviewed. It is no use just laughing at professionals because in the end the laugh is on you.
That's part of the scientific method. It's something our new resident child-flamer doesn't grasp. However was there any real doubt as to the accuracy of the statement? Being a physicist I know how careful scientists are in their work and what goes into making that kind of a statement. At first the idea was put out there as what follows from observation. However it took a while for physicists to fall in line and accept it because they too don't simply accept it because someone tells them too. It's very clear that the child-flamer has no clue about that part of the scientific method. Like everyone who uses the term "indoctrinate" in a forum discussion he too is extremely ignorant about what science is or how it's done. I recommend ignoring the child-flamer. He's no good for the forum and responding to him will only make him want to stay and flame those who disagree with him.
-
It goes against every instinct I have even to appear to support someone who posts the kind of pathetic ad hominem outbursts that appear in this thread, so I distance myself from that before going any further.
However, I have a couple of questions.
1. I take the point that the amount of positive energy in the Universe may well be the same as the negative energy, in which case the balance would be zero; but surely there would still be energy in the Universe; some +ve and some –ve?
2. Would I not be right in thinking that accepting the Big Bang theory does not necessarily mean accepting that the Universe came from nothing?
-
...but surely there would still be energy in the Universe; some +ve and some ve?
Who's to say. That does not have the status of a universally accepted fact as of yet.
2. Would I not be right in thinking that accepting the Big Bang theory does not necessarily mean accepting that the Universe came from nothing?
That's correct. Consider the Pre-Big Bang Scenario. I don't know it that well but I believe that it postulates the existence of matter before the big bang phase. You'd have to look this up to be certain. I haven't studied this theory yet.
-
This is my first post. You know how it's said that if a mass could reach light speed, it would expand into infinite energy (my paraphrasing)? Or that if you could pinpoint reality down to below the Planck scale, into a point, it would pretty much do the same thing? Maybe a singularity is that, pure infinite (no spacetime to say otherwise!) randomness and potential and unlawfulness. Maybe that's not a sustainable condition, so it explodes or inflates, into an immediate process of differentiation, symmetry breaking, "cooling". Maybe this process itself evolved the laws as we know them now, like a boot strap action. The infinite possible outcomes increasingly break symmetry into specific behaviors (laws) that take further development along more and more constrained paths? Til it comes to us blogging about it, like salamanders' eyes first looking above the surface of a swamp.
Or, it's turtles all the way down.
-
Stephen Hawking “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
What was the universe if it had pre big bang "properties". It was not nothing if it had properties. Was this in existence on it's own? Or where did it come from?
I suspect there was no probability before the big bang.
-
I'm new here so you have to bear with me until I get to know some of your names. Anyway, one of you stated: "I have argued in other threads that there cannot ever have been nothing, otherwise there would be nothing now." First, not to seem mean, and maybe it's just me but that doesn't really make sense. How do you come by that answer? I am curious to read your answer. Anyway, if what you say is true and you can get something from nothing, than next time you go to the grocery store and get up to the register with a cart full of food, when the cashier tells you how much it costs try paying her with an empty hand but explain that there is actually money in it. What? You said you can get something from nothing so why not get money out of thin air? If these actions/reactions happened when there was just blackness, surely convincing the cashier should be easy. Here's something else to think about...what if (just a small possibility) the Big Bang (I just noticed that not only do I have a hard time saying it but I have a hard time typing it as well) happened do to the Almighty waving his hand? How do you know it's not possible? You would still have your "theory" but this would also show that God very possibly exists.
-
That's a really good question. We find laws, and mathematics describing them, but it doesn't tell us if those are a result of the SpaceTime we have, or if they was there even 'before' and so defined the SpaceTime we observe. I think you need something though, even if altogether 'immaterial' to get to a 'Big Bang'
-
Some friends of mine were having a discussion about this, and not being that knowledgeable about physics, I had little to add, but I did wonder about some of their assertions.
This was the original question that started the discussion:
"So let's say the Universe started as a quantum singularity, an energy-neutral vacuum tunneling event leading to a Big Bang or Big Smear or Big Whatever. And it's been all downhill since then....
That tunneling event occurred because of the laws of quantum mechanics, right? The laws of physics are responsible for creation.
But means that these laws existed *before* the Big Event. So...where did they exist? Where were they kept?
Nice to see you cheryl! :)
Too many people incorrectly speak of the big bang as if it were an event where the universe began but in fact there's no such event in the big bang theory. Peebles explains this very well in his text Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles on page 6 which reads
The familiar name for this picture, the "big bang" cosmological model, is unfortunate because it suggests we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion of the universe, and it may also suggest the event was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. ... If there were an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started expanding, it is not in he cosmology as it is now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened.
This is why Weinberg introduced the term standard model.
So my response to your question is that we don't know yet whether there was or wasn't a "before" the beginning of the expansion of the universe.
-
Found this with Sean Carrol.
" Are the Laws of Physics Really Universal? " https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/are-the-laws-of-physics-really-universal/
It doesn't discuss 'what came before' as much as it tries to see if the physical laws we know now always has been the same. That's as good as it gets I think :)
-
It's important to remember that scientific laws are descriptive of what happens, not prescriptive of what should happen. So perhaps we really need to invert the question: the Big Bang is whatever event isn't fully described by the laws we have observed so far.
-
To me then, the 'big bang' wasn't at any specific location in time and space.
Can't be if we trust in a homogeneous and isotropic universe.
And that one is what makes 'proper time' and proper length' as well as 'repeatable experiments'.
Throw that away and you're left with nothing.
-
Doesn't mean we can't define a 'time' to it
-
Hi Rev_Kurt, welcome.
I'm new here so you have to bear with me until I get to know some of your names. Anyway, one of you stated: "I have argued in other threads that there cannot ever have been nothing, otherwise there would be nothing now."
Even without checking, I can be fairly sure I said that. What surprises me, is that you seem to have interpreted it as saying that something could come from nothing. On the contrary; it says that if there had ever been “nothing”, there would still be nothing now; and as we are here, posting, that, manifestly, is not the case.