History of the Universe and Earth

[Tiger]

I honestly don't believe in either.

[Bridge]

Stephen Hawking has a nice explanation of his (partially his) so-called "Boundless Universe Theory" in "A Brief History of Time" which says that the universe is sort of like Earth in that there is no beginning or end per se and yet it is not infinite. But since the universe is constantly expanding it is only theoretically possible to do a lap around it according to this theory. Personally I think it makes by far the most sense, and ties up some pesky knots like the fact that the universe appears to repeat itself in every direction. I'm not really an expert so that may be completely untrue, but it's my interpretation of things.

[Yuhaney]

So, did I understand correctly that by this theory the universe is a sphere which is getting larger and larger?

[BAndrew]

@Scraper.

Not exactly. But you could say so.

The geometry of space in our universe depends on a constant Ω.

• If the curvature is zero, then Ω = 1, and the Pythagorean theorem is correct;
  
• If Ω > 1, there is positive curvature;
  
• Ιf Ω < 1 there is negative curvature.
  

Possible Local Geometries:

• 3-dimensional Flat Euclidean geometry, generally notated as E^3
  
• 3-dimensional spherical geometry with a small curvature, often notated as S^3
  
• 3-dimensional hyperbolic geometry with a small curvature
  

Possible Global Geometries:

• Is infinite in extent or is a compact space;
  
• Has a simply or non-simply connected topology.
  

A spherical universe is possible.



It is clearer in this image:


We don't really know for sure yet.

(Bridge referred to the positive curvature)
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

[Your Computer]

I like to believe that the universe is spherical and finite (though i don't mean to imply from the word "finite" that it is small, but insanely large), but also formulated into layers. I've found the wiki article on Olber's paradox to be an interesting read, though i don't necessarily find the counter explanations as evidence for an infinite universe.

Question 1: If the Big Bang is true there isn't something before the Big Bang. No time, no space, no anything. It just happened.
Question 3: Nothing made the Big Bang. It just happened. If you are going to say that God created the Big Bang then excuse me but I'll have to ask:Where did god come from? If you say that this is an unanswerable question then why not save a step and conclude that the creation of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if you say that God always existed why not save a step and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creator. This is not an easy question.

Although my fields of study don't really involve the sciences, i don't see what you present as difficult to respond to or explain. All truth is logical, even though all things logical may not be true, so at least we could leave out absurdities like nothing --> something. Then again, i also know some people would argue that logic or the "laws of nature" break down or simply do not exist (perhaps to go on to say that the "laws of nature" were created shortly after the start of the big bang) at the "beginning of time." But logic would tell us that too is an absurdity. So we can derive from this examination that nothing cannot create something, and that some form of recipe (with "ingredients"!) or "laws of nature" had to exist, for if they didn't, nothing would have resulted from the big bang event, for there would be no event to begin with.

So from this consideration we can derive that something(!) had to exist before the event (and at least the laws of thermodynamics won't be contradicted! ). It should be safe to assume that at least one of the things that pre-date the big bang, therefore, are the "laws" of nature that are observable today and have remained unchanged. And today we observe that the universe is "expanding." Unless you can point out to me forces (whether gravitational or not) or "laws" of nature that can and will reverse this "expansion," that is, cause the universe to "contract," it should be perfectly safe to assume that any contraction would not occur naturally, especially to where it causes universal deconstruction of matter (as i would assume that would require an extremely large amount of energy, perhaps an infinite amount).

So if such a contraction cannot occur naturally, may require an infinite amount of energy, the "laws" observable today applied back then too, i would find that a conscious entity who's omnipotent (i.e. greater than the universe) to be a suitable and logical explanation for any "big bang" event. Yes, this allows for things other than this conscious entity to be eternal in their nature; however(!), this "eternal" characteristic could only be demanded for this conscious entity (and therefore not demanded for the other things), for this conscious entity has to be able to pre-date everything else, or else infinite regressions are met. Consider that, if this conscious entity did not exist and the other things pre-dated the big bang event therefore implying that the big bang event occurred naturally, that an infinite regression would be necessarily met. This is because of the assumption that the same laws observable today pre-date the big bang. Therefore, if the big bang event occurred naturally, it would only be in due time that the universe will contract and form another big bang event, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

[Froge]

The brain is a three pound mass you can hold in your hand that can conceive of a universe a hundred-billion light years across.

I find this quote interesting. In my opinion, while this seems impressive, it actually isn't. I would say that what the brain is good at is creating models. From sensory perception the brain realizes some very basic axioms: for example, that something has distance, something is solid, something has mass, etc. As we progress through life we create abstract models that are based on these axioms, such as math, physics, etc. And our understanding of the size of the universe is just part of the model our brain has created to comprehend distance.

[PutraenusAlivius]

Problems with the Big Bang.

THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
The Grand Unified theory hypothesizes that at the beginning of the Universe, the 4* primary forces of the Universe are one such as:

- Gravity
- Strong nuclear force
- Weak nuclear force
- Electromagnetism

*3 forces if you count the Strong and Weak nuclear forces as one

So if these forces are unified then separate, it might give insight that the Big Bang theory can do such impossible things.

BIG BANG CONTRADICTING WITH LAWS OF PHYSICS

Now, the Big Bang contradicts with the laws of Physics. An example of one of this that the Big Bang generates Energy which contradicts with the Conservation of Energy law, which states that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

One possible theory is that since the Universe was really dense and small at the time, classical Physics and other laws don't apply, and instead Quantum Physics was in play.

[BAndrew]

Although my fields of study don't really involve the sciences, i don't see what you present as difficult to respond to or explain. All truth is logical, even though all things logical may not be true, so at least we could leave out absurdities like nothing --> something. Then again, i also know some people would argue that logic or the "laws of nature" break down or simply do not exist (perhaps to go on to say that the "laws of nature" were created shortly after the start of the big bang) at the "beginning of time." But logic would tell us that too is an absurdity. So we can derive from this examination that nothing cannot create something, and that some form of recipe (with "ingredients"!) or "laws of nature" had to exist, for if they didn't, nothing would have resulted from the big bang event, for there would be no event to begin with.


So if such a contraction cannot occur naturally, may require an infinite amount of energy, the "laws" observable today applied back then too, i would find that a conscious entity who's omnipotent (i.e. greater than the universe) to be a suitable and logical explanation for any "big bang" event. Yes, this allows for things other than this conscious entity to be eternal in their nature; however(!), this "eternal" characteristic could only be demanded for this conscious entity (and therefore not demanded for the other things), for this conscious entity has to be able to pre-date everything else, or else infinite regressions are met. Consider that, if this conscious entity did not exist and the other things pre-dated the big bang event therefore implying that the big bang event occurred naturally, that an infinite regression would be necessarily met. This is because of the assumption that the same laws observable today pre-date the big bang. Therefore, if the big bang event occurred naturally, it would only be in due time that the universe will contract and form another big bang event, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

I think I lost you. Who told you the universe was created in the first place? Why are you so racist? What's wrong with the universe being eternal? If such an entity could exist and be eternal why not simply say that the Universe existed forever (if Big Bang is correct --> Infinity of Big Bangs - Big Crunches, otherwise --> it just exists forever)? I don't see the need for a creator. Also how can a creator exist before the Big Bang when there is no before the Big Bang? It doesn't make any sense. So I suppose he lives somewhere (?) else. Now that's NOT in spacetime ( can't be because it fails the previous argument), it's not a place or any given moment in time. But it's something. Again there is a need for another creator. This leads to a never ending hierarchy*.

*Which if I understood correctly is the thing you tried to avoid? Ooops!


Note: The Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply the creation of the universe.
Also the entire question "who/what made the universe?" doesn't make any sense. There was no time for anything or anyone to create the universe in the first place.

---

The brain is a three pound mass you can hold in your hand that can conceive of a universe a hundred-billion light years across.

I find this quote interesting. In my opinion, while this seems impressive, it actually isn't. I would say that what the brain is good at is creating models. From sensory perception the brain realizes some very basic axioms: for example, that something has distance, something is solid, something has mass, etc. As we progress through life we create abstract models that are based on these axioms, such as math, physics, etc. And our understanding of the size of the universe is just part of the model our brain has created to comprehend distance.

@Chronofrog

It's still impressive...

[Your Computer]

I think I lost you. Who told you the universe was created in the first place? Why are you so racist? What's wrong with the universe being eternal? If such an entity could exist and be eternal why not simply say that the Universe existed forever (if Big Bang is correct --> Infinity of Big Bangs - Big Crunches, otherwise --> it just exists forever)? I don't see the need for a creator. Also how can a creator exist before the Big Bang when there is no before the Big Bang? It doesn't make any sense. So I suppose he lives somewhere (?) else. Now that's NOT in spacetime ( can't be because it fails the previous argument), it's not a place or any given moment in time. But it's something. Again there is a need for another creator. This leads to a never ending hierarchy*.

*Which if I understood correctly is the thing you tried to avoid? Ooops!

I am not sure how to respond to this. Not because i have no response, but that your questions are redundant and odd (the odd part being suggesting that i'm a racist of some kind). If you read my post, especially the part that you underlined, you would have had your answers before posting these questions. So, i agree that you have lost me at some point. While quite tedious, i will guide you through my text in some way in hopes of you being able to navigate through my words.

True, through the declaration of an unnatural big bang event, i did imply that the universe was formed by an external, conscious, omnipotent entity (read, "So if such a contraction cannot occur naturally, may require an infinite amount of energy, the "laws" observable today applied back then too, i would find that a conscious entity who's omnipotent (i.e. greater than the universe) to be a suitable and logical explanation for any `big bang` event."). However, in making such a declaration, i did not create scenarios where it is impossible for matter to be eternal (read, "this allows for things other than this conscious entity to be eternal in their nature."), nor was any statement made from me that necessitates creation (read, "however(!), this `eternal` characteristic could only be demanded for this conscious entity"). Indeed, any statement on creation did not come from me but from the implications of the big bang theory itself, from which i commented on. Also, if the "universe" existed forever, then clearly we're not talking about the big bang event, so your question on that is irrelevant to the discussion of the big bang.

I could understand why you would see no need for a creator or an external, omnipotent, conscious entity if logic permitted something-from-nothing and if contractions that cause (un)natural deconstructions of matter at incredible scales was something that can occur naturally for this universe. Otherwise, i do not understand how you cannot see the need for something like God in order for a "big bang" to occur (therefore pre-existing the big bang).

"Space" and "time" in themselves do not exist, as it is merely an abstract idea of the mind, so i would find it absurd to claim that an external entity was "somewhere," or that spacetime applies to this entity, if nothing but that entity existed. Likewise, as i mentioned (read, "All truth is logical, even though all things logical may not be true, so at least we could leave out absurdities like nothing --> something."), assuming that nothing pre-existed the big bang is itself an absurdity (read, "So we can derive from this examination that nothing cannot create something, and that some form of recipe (with `ingredients`!) or `laws of nature` had to exist, for if they didn't, nothing would have resulted from the big bang event, for there would be no event to begin with.").

Why is there a need for more than one external, conscious, and omnipotent entity, when the one mentioned is all that is required, demanded, implied, etc, for unnatural events? You have not explained yourself here and i would rather not assume that your only argument for an infinite regression of external entities is because they're outside of "spacetime" (since having such an assumption i would find to be absurd).

Note: The Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply the creation of the universe.
Also the entire question "who/what made the universe?" doesn't make any sense. There was no time for anything or anyone to create the universe in the first place.

True, due to the fact that--assuming universal contractions to the scale of the big bang are natural--eternity and conservation of energy allow for infinite regressions, the big bang doesn't necessarily imply the creation of the universe. But if one is looking to avoid infinite regressions, it would make great sense to include a "who" or a "what" in the "when, where, why, how" sequence of questions. That is, unless, you're satisfied with the absurd statement that "nothing pre-existed the big bang." (Which i doubt you are, since you appear to be quick to ask, "Why can't the universe have existed forever?")

[PutraenusAlivius]

Can you guys stop arguing? I want this thread to be argument free you know!

Now, can you guys discuss the Problems of the Big Bang theory that I posted earlier.