The singularity (an entity of infinite density and zero mass) was under intense pressure from what?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
First cause of the universe.
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
The singularity (an entity of infinite density and zero mass) was under intense pressure from what?
I think the consensus among astronomers is not that there was nothing "before" the Big Bang, but rather that there can be no causal relationship with phenomena beyond the temporal dimension of our universe, therefore it's reasonable to disregard that which can have no discernible effects on the subject of scientific enquiry.
A person's cultural, social, intellectual and spiritual convictions, prejudices etc, have everything to do with their perception of the universe around them, whether they be conscious of this or not.
Last edited:
The concept of causality might not be applicable. Therefore, "coming from" might also be not applicable.
Since time is a physical constituent of the Universe, like space, then there is no place nor time the Universe can come from. These concepts are simply meaningless without an external spacetime context things can come from. And by the way, since spacetime is a constituent of the Universe and, by definition, it cannot change (since change requires time and space), it follows that the Universe is eternal and unchanging, despite Big Bang cosmology still being true.
So, we should never say that the Universe began, because that is absurd. Actually, we should never use tensed verbs when we address the Universe. We should say, instead, that there is a spacetime location, approximately at about 13,8 billion years in our relative past, where the Universe is extremely dense, and so on. It still is so dense and peculiar, at that location.
And why does the Universe exist? Probably for the same reason that mountain is in Switzerland and not in New Jersey. So, why not? Why questions tend to be question begging by assuming that there is a "because".
Ciao
- viole
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What cause it ? Don't know. Way above my paygrade. Where did the matter come from? Seriously it may have come from "nothing". And it would not beak the First Law of Thermodynamics. A couple of points, on a universal scale there is positive energy and negative energy. As long as the energy made in the universe matched the negative energy of the universe there would be a net energy of zero. So some scientists measured the total energy of the universe. It turns out to be zero. Which is what we would expect if matter came from nothing.
Again, above my paygrade, but I can link a video by Lawrence Krauss where he explains this concept.
If the matter wasn't there, what would be there?
Why wouldn't matter be there?
Shouldn't we also ask where the empty space came from?
We have the choice to believe that the big bang occurred (and science proved it), or believe that the big bang occurred with God's help. No one has proven that God exists, nor that God made the universe. God is an extra thing that isn't included in the scientist's view of the creation of the universe. Why add an extra thing?
Why believe in God if there is no reason to believe? If we are to believe in anything without proof, then we could believe that cartoon character Fred Flintstone is real. Or, we could believe that Tom and Jerry cartoons are real. There are an infinite number of things that we could believe if we abandon the need for proof.
Scientists believe that all of the matter in the universe was in a smaller space. Unlike an explosion (that spews matter across space), the big bang was an expansion of space, itself. It was not an expansion of space-time (that is, time did not dilate). Thus, there are points in the universe that didn't expand at all, but because space, itself, is expanding, those points never moved from their original position (called co-moving observers). Thus, the Twin Paradox doen't apply to those two distant points. That is, time has not changed from one point (lets say earth) to a distant point (lets say a point that is moving away from earth at the speed of light due to the expansion of space). Thus, the time for that distant point is the same as the time for us. (It isn't like a man traveling in a spaceship at high velocity, then coming back to find that his twin has aged on earth--Twin Paradox).
Scientists believe that all of the matter of the universe was in such a small space that solid matter could not exist (no atoms). Rather, plasma existed (bits of atoms, and perhaps just quarks and gluons). At that point, light scattered off of plasma and couldn't escape. Also, the gravitational pull was too great to allow it to escape. Once the universe expanded, it allowed light to escape (and that is the 3 degree Kelvin background radiation that we detect in all directions of the universe....it is the remnant of the big bang, which proves the theory).
There is no question that the universe is expanding (space, itself is expanding). And, that expansion is accelerating. Science doesn't yet have all of the answers, but they suspect that there is dark energy that has negative gravity that is pushing the universe apart. Initially, they had not found that dark energy, but recently they have discovered it. I don't know if they have proven that it has negative gravity.
I think that it is possible that science doesn't yet know what is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Nor do I believe that they understand what made the mass of the universe in the first place. But I know that speculating that there is a God in order to fill in the gaps of our knowledge is not very productive. It would be better to study the issue more and determine the truth.
Apparently no space exists outside of the universe. I wonder if it is possible for something to exist outside of the universe and be sucked in? I know that black holes don't let out any matter (except for a small amount of Hawking radiation due to statistical probability of tunneling out of a black hole), and even that faint amount of radiation has no place to go once it is outside of a black hole, so it will be sucked in.
If it is true that no matter or energy can escape from our universe, then our universe is a black hole. When I asked astronomy and cosmology professors if we could live inside of a black hole, they always told me that we would be crushed. But obviously we are inside of a black hole right now, and we are not crushed.
Black holes suck in matter, and that matter spirals around to the poles of the black hole, and funnels through a narrow opening inside the black hole. Some matter can't make it through the narrow opening, and is shot out at high velocities (which exceeds the speed of light in that medium, which therefore produces Cerenkov radiation, which we can detect on earth).
Virtually all galaxies have a black hole at their center. For years, it was said that the center of our Milky Way galaxy was obscured by thick dust. But, there is a black hole under that dust that has sufficient gravitational force to hold the whole galaxy together.
I wonder why it is so common that galaxies have twins (they often form as pairs)? Could it be that they had opposite charges when first formed and that repelled them?
We know that there are parts of the galaxy that are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (due to the expansion of space). But I wonder if space and time can somehow wrap around and come back to the beginning again? There is no proof that this is what is happening, but it might explain the origin of the big bang. That is, if this is right, the universe would expand until it goes back in time to the beginning of the universe and back to the original ball of energy that started the whole universe.
But, we don't have any reason to believe that such time travel is possible.
We do know that inside of a singularity (a pin point of space), the laws of physics, as we know them could not possibly exist. That is, velocity doesn't exist because velocity is defined to be space traveled divided by time. Since space has zero dimensions in a singularity, it is impossible to define velocity. Energy could be defined, but not based on velocity. Momentum could be defined, and related to energy (because that relationship doesn't depend on velocity), but it can't be defined with velocity if velocity doesn't exist.
Since the normal laws of physics don't apply in a singularity, we can't really say, for sure, that time travel (back to the beginning of the universe) is impossible. Yet, we must accept only the things that we know are true, rather than wild speculations.
True. . . time is defined for us only inside the universe. Supposedly there is no time outside of the universe, and therefore no outside matter can hit our universe.
On the other hand, I know that matter is sucked inside black holes. I don't think that it can ever reach the center of the black hole, because time dilates (goes to no movement of time in this case), so there is no time for matter to reach the center of a black hole. When the black hole first formed, it might have formed form a star, that gained mass by collision with other stars. However, once formed, I would think that no more matter would be able to reach the center. Thus, a black hole might be a hollow shell.
Since some physical laws that we are used to don't exist in singularities (for example, velocity can't be defined), I reject the idea that there is a singularity. Because I think that there would be a repelling force long before the physical laws break down. Perhaps this is like a gigantic quantum state, where quantum forces repel matter?
Inspired....I shall climb that Swiss mountain to speak to the guru and gain his insights. Come to think of it, it seems silly to live on top of a mountain, so just what exactly could I learn from him? Besides, he went up there to get away from me (I talk too much).
firedragon
Veteran Member
Where did this singularity come from?
firedragon
Veteran Member
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats a fallacious, bogus question. Asking for a beginning or a first cause for something that by definition does not have cause is like asking for gold from a tooth.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't know.
And given what we know about the universe so far, it seems that "cause" isn't a valid word either, since causality requires temporal conditions (causes happen before effects), which (again: according to what we know so far) are in fact an inherent aspect of the universe itself.
In other words: if you delete the universe, you also delete temporal conditions.
"if not god"?
This implies that god is a valid and / or plausible option. How was this determined?
Having said that: I don't know.
In terms of science, as far as I as a layman understand it at least (so grains of salt and such...), matter is just energy in different form. And it seems that the total energy of the universe is actually "zero", pulled apart by positive and negative energy.
Conceptually, you could say that "0" thus is the same as +1000 and -1000.
"matter" would then be part of the +1000.
Conceptually, that makes sense to me. But at the same time, it also goes way over my head.
But again: why is "god" even an option in your mind?
And what is wrong with saying "we don't know"?
Clearly we don't know... and to then say "god", seems to be just an argument from ignorance.
When we don't know... just say we don't know instead of making stuff up.
As said, I/we don't know about the origins of the universe.
And I have no reason either to assume that there is even a "why" (in the sense of "intention" or "purpose") in the first place.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's just a molecule.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It just is.
The "information" in the DNA molecule is no different from the "information" in a water molecule.
The "instructions" bit is a metaphor.
In reality, it's a chemical reaction.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why "biblical" scriptures?
Why not Aztec scriptures? Islamic scriptures? Hindu scriptures? Or any of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other ones?
What makes your bible so special, other then you already believing it (likely only due to your geographic location)?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The "first cause" argument debunks itself as it is infested with logical fallacies like special pleading, arguments from ignorance, etc.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is in the Science and Religion section, so I will answer, not from the viewpoint of atheism, but from the viewpoint of science.
Your question seems to assume that there has to be an immediate answer to any question about nature that we care to ask. However that is not how science works.
In science, only answers that can be tested by observation count. Science tries to avoid the temptation to rush to fill in the gaps in our knowledge by putting forward untestable hypotheses. As result, there are many open questions in science, and that is as it should be.
There is no observational evidence to answer the question of what caused the Big Bang. In fact, it is a moot point whether the question has any meaning, since according to at least one model, time itself started at the Big Bang, whereas the notion of a "cause" implies something occurring before it took place.
There is a further implicit assumption in your question, which is that there must have a been a cause. We have debated on this forum before whether every event has to have a cause. It does not seem to be necessarily the case.
When it comes to atheism and religion, many atheists are physicalists. Physicalism is the worldview that all there is to reality is the physical world. So I think the physicalist will probably answer your question the way that science would answer it: we don't know - and the question itself may not even have a meaning. Regarding other forms of atheism, I can't comment.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
By made up definition.
I can "define" the universe as being eternal as well.
Anything goes if we get to just make stuff up.
exchemist
Veteran Member
The operation of the laws of nature.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Do you have evidence for that, or is it just an opinion based on what some people have told you without offering evidence?
This thread may help.
Some of the pics are broken but still useful I think
Singularities and beginning of the universe