[RobC]

Here's the answer --
https://www.quora.com/What-banged-at-The-Big-Bang

[Bill S]

Great link, Rob.  Let’s not nit-pick the story; it has a lot going for it.

This is worth a look, as well.
https://www.quora.com/What-existed-before-the-Big-Bang-1

 

Keep in mind, Nothingness does not exist in our universe, only in the Cosmos. Another way to define Nothingness is that it is an absence of Somethingness.

There’s enough in that quote, alone, to keep this thread going for another 300 posts, but it’s probably time to wind it up, before we are all so to speak, "snarked".

Time to consider some other laws.

Deutsch's Law
Every problem that is interesting is also soluble.

So what?

Have we spent over 300 posts looking for a nonexistent solution?

Take heart, though:

Smolin's Second Law
In every period and every community there is something that everybody believes, but cannot justify. If you want to understand anything, you have to start by ignoring what everyone believes, and thinking for yourself.  (My bold).

If all else fails:

Davies' Second Law
Never let observation stand in the way of a good theory.

[Colin2B]

it’s probably time to wind it up, before we are all so to speak, "snarked".

I think you have already snarked yourself Bill 

So what?

Have we spent over 300 posts looking for a nonexistent solution?

No, just looking in the wrong place.
Physics isn’t really discoverable by this type of ‘analysis’, in fact it has often taken science down the wrong road for a long time eg Aristotle for almost 2000 years. Alan Guth, for example, has a very different approach through investigation of the behaviour of subatomic particles in extreme conditions and some specific problems, eg magnetic monopoles, which lead to a very radical approach to understanding the development of the early universe. Some of his ideas may seem strange to our classical minds - the universe appearing out of nothing, our timeline not being eternal (eternity = infinite time) - but they are grounded in some pretty solid physics. Not saying he is completely right, but at least it’s physics.

[alancalverd]

Have we spent over 300 posts looking for a nonexistent solution?

Obviously not. If there was a big bang, either nothing ever changed before it, in which case t< 0 is meaningless, or something did, in which case there is a solution which we have yet to find.

What I think we almost established is a common vocabulary that admits the possibility of the universe being infinite and the observable universe being a phenomenon within it. That is a sufficient framework for searching for solutions, the acid test of which is that they must yield the status quo for t > 0.

[Bill S]

I think you have already snarked yourself Bill 

It's a congenital condition, Colin.  Too late to do anything about it now; even if I wanted to.

[Bill S]

What I think we almost established is a common vocabulary that admits the possibility of the universe being infinite and the observable universe being a phenomenon within it.

That, in itself, is quite an achievement. 

Pete summed it up, years ago, #20:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53002.msg445072#msg445072

1.  Is infinity a number?

No. It's not a number. It's a concept/idea.

2.  Is eternity a length of time?

No. Just like eternity [infinity?] it's a concept. Think of it as infinite amount of time.

Mathematical infinities provide us with all we need to explore the physics of our Universe.  Maths and physics can even provide theories for how our Universe can be here.  What more could we need? Nothing.  What more might we want? Could be, that depends on how closely we want to look at infinity,  and how “snarked” we are.