« on: Yesterday at 22:00:55 »
If I understand the classical BBTEvery time you say these words, it means you're spouting something that you know is wrong.
there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.BBT is not a creation theory any more than evolution theory is an explanation of abiogenesis. It does not posit something from nothing. It only describes the evolution of the universe from the initial singularity.
That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.Not a small space. Just high density, but it specifies no size, which would be a number. Don't mistake the word 'singularity' for a thing with a size.
Now, let's move on to the universe with infinite space that was there long before the bang.No. Time as we know it is not defined prior to the singularity any more than altitude above your house is defined lower than the center of Earth, and also as gravitational potential is not meaningful for values above (*) the potential of a zero-energy universe. ( * A white hole is arguably an exception to this, but it is a mathematical solution that doesn't seem to actually exist anywhere)
Spacetime itself is not defined at the singularity. These things emerged later, near say the Planck epoch. The universe has many temporal singularities. The big bang is just one of them.
What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?The energy (sans 'matter') was arguably a function of the various fields, except even those took some time to separate out into the various distinct fields. A unified quantum field theory would give a better answer to the above question, and it is still a work in progress. Fields have been merged by different approaches, but never all of them into one unified field.
Indeed, there was zero context to that question.QuoteWhy do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?What two different things are you talking about?