The beginning of the universe

[Agnostic75]

Many people claim that the universe came into existence about 13 billion years ago. However, is it reasonably possible that it had existed long before that in a very small state, and began to expand about 13 billion years ago?

 

[chinu]

Many people claim that the universe came into existence about 13 billion years ago. However, is it reasonably possible that it had existed long before that in a very small state, and began to expand about 13 billion years ago?

For instance if it is, than what difference does it makes to you ?

 

[rusra02]

Many people claim that the universe came into existence about 13 billion years ago. However, is it reasonably possible that it had existed long before that in a very small state, and began to expand about 13 billion years ago?

However he did it, I believe it is as Psalms 33:6 says: "By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made, And by the spirit of his mouth everything in them."
The order and precision manifest in the universe has to be the work of a master Organizer.

 

[shawn001]

God repeatedly refers to himself as "US" though why and why only in genesis is never explained.
Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7

God creates day and night on the first day, but somehow waits until day number four to create the sun and all the other stars.
Gen 1:3-5, 16-19

That is NOT how it happened.

 

[Ouroboros]

God repeatedly refers to himself as "US" though why and why only in genesis is never explained.
Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7

God creates day and night on the first day, but somehow waits until day number four to create the sun and all the other stars.
Gen 1:3-5, 16-19

That is NOT how it happened.

Yup.

Also, since we know Earth is spherical and day and night is constantly somewhere simultaneous somewhere on Earth (when it's 1 AM at your place, it's 1 PM on the opposite side). And morning and eventing is consistently moving around the planet. Exactly which time zone did the author refer to for the creation events? Why did God wait between the days for a specific time zone? Was it based on the day and night in Israel? Or was it Greenwich time? UTC?

Obviously the author thought that the world revolved around one point on this planet only, and it was the point where he lived (wherever that was).

A universe with 22 sixtillion stars wouldn't have to be created during Israel day time and have to be on hold for 8-10 hours overnight.

It's obviously not a scientific story.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God repeatedly refers to himself as "US" though why and why only in genesis is never explained.
Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7

Echoes of the Canaanite polytheism that the cult of Yahweh grew out of.

 

[technomage]

Many people claim that the universe came into existence about 13 billion years ago. However, is it reasonably possible that it had existed long before that in a very small state, and began to expand about 13 billion years ago?

From my best understanding of physics, time began when the universe started expanding. There is no way to reference a "before" the big bang, because no time existed.

 

[technomage]

Echoes of the Canaanite polytheism that the cult of Yahweh grew out of.

Replace "echoes" with "wholesale plagiarism."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Replace "echoes" with "wholesale plagiarism."

I was being charitable.

 

[gnostic]

From my best understanding of physics, time began when the universe started expanding. There is no way to reference a "before" the big bang, because no time existed.

No.

Time didn't start with the Big Bang.

The BB cosmologists are observing everything they could possibly observe, going further and further back in time (and space), but at certain point in time they cannot observe any further. For us...and the universe...time began at the point the initial expansion, but that's not to say there were no time, no space or no matter, whatsoever.

In fact, the BB cosmologists don't know what happen or how the initial expansion happen, at 0 second. The BB cosmologists don't really know what happen in the first 10^-43 second, known as the Planck epoch of the Big Bang.

Scientists are only guessing the events that took place between 0 second and 10^-43 second - the Planck epoch.

Scientists know for fact that the universe as we know, from initial expansion or the Big Bang, that the universe at the very least is 13.7 billion years old. Scientists can only speculate what the universe was like before the Big Bang - the singularity.

What most scientists have speculate what this singularity is like, too dense and too hot for ordinary matters, like atoms to form.

There are no reasons to believe that time didn't exist. The Big Bang and the age of the universe is only presenting the theory from our perspective.

 

[technomage]

No.

Time didn't start with the Big Bang.

You'll have to argue that assertion over with Hawking.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

 

[gnostic]

You'll have to argue that assertion over with Hawking.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

technomage, I am just a civil engineer and computer scientist (programmer). I just happened to be fascinated by astronomy and cosmology, and yet, I know that my fascination place me no where in league with Hawking.

But I do know that our current technology have put limits to our science.

Who knows. Perhaps in 10 years, 20 years or in half a century from now, we may uncover what really happen before 10^-43 second or what are the physical properties of the singularity, once our technology improve even more. If we can actually look back in time, and see the singularity, then perhaps, just perhaps, we come to realize that time didn't just stop.

The Big Bang only represent the start of our time of our universe...nothing more, nothing less. I just don't think science or scientist should just stop there.

 

[technomage]

technomage, I am just a civil engineer and computer scientist (programmer).

Then you know what a mechanical singularity is: there's a similar concept with physics called a gravitational singularity. At that point, gnostic, time does not exist within the singularity. If (as the Big Bang theory states) the entirety of the universe was contained inside the pre-Big-Bang singularity, there was no time in the entire universe.

Are there universes outside of ours where time existed? I dunno--that's far above any expertise I have. But this is not a "science will discover what's going on in ten or twenty years" situation: if the singularity did exist, then nothing can be discovered about any pre-singularity state.

 

[shawn001]

Did you guys follow the dark flow issue that was and still is in a way going on?

 

[technomage]

Did you guys follow the dark flow issue that was and still is in a way going on?

Follow? Yes.

Understand? ... not so much.

 

[shawn001]

Well, simply, it was kind of looking like they found another universe inside this one. The WMAP team came up with the results and then the Planck team did not confirmed them from their results, but one guy on the Planck Team said they might have it wrong as well and are double checking their results again. Although it doesn't look real good at the moment for another one, but its pretty interesting and I think still possible if the Planck results weren't right for some reason.


Blow for 'dark flow' in Planck's new view of the cosmos

Blow for 'dark flow' in Planck's new view of the cosmos - space - 03 April 2013 - New Scientist

 

[technomage]

Well, simply, it was kind of looking like they found another universe inside this one.

Interesting. If this "dark flow" does not, indeed, exist, it simplifies things--that much I can understand. Where I was getting lost was how something in "another universe" could affect this one, or how one universe could be inside another one.

 

[shawn001]

You could potentially have another bang inside this one.

Some have also suggested that dark energy and dark matter might be such a case and why it doesn't react with matter directly, but that is way earlier yet. A hypothesis.

It also maybe possible for another universe to each effect each other. They thought that for a while with gravity, it was week because we were only getting part of it seeping in from another one, but I think they have since ruled that out.

But then there is this as well. I am not exactly sure where they are at with this theory as of now.

Quantum gravity takes singularity out of black holes

Quantum gravity takes singularity out of black holes - space - 29 May 2013 - New Scientist

 

[gnostic]

Many people claim that the universe came into existence about 13 billion years ago. However, is it reasonably possible that it had existed long before that in a very small state, and began to expand about 13 billion years ago?

That's what I believe.

13.7 billion years is only the time when our universe began for us - the observable universe.

The universe began forming subatomic particles, as the universe began to expand, and cool. Subatomic particles, created atomic particles (like protons, neutrons, the nuclei), that eventually created the first atoms - hydrogen. As hydrogen atoms coalesced together, due to their masses and gravity, the pool of hydrogen eventually ignited, to form the first stars.

All of the above abbreviated version of the early universe after the initial expansion, show the universe at their infancy stage.

If you look at the universe as a baby, then the initial expansion (or the Big Bang) that occurred 13.7 or so billion of years ago, then the Big Bang can be liken to giving birth to the child.

Continuing the baby allegory of the universe...but going backward...then the universe as a singularity, can be liken to the unborn baby or fetus in the womb. As an observer, we can't see the unborn baby in the womb (unless we use ultrasound), just like we can't see singularity because the opaqueness of plasma.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yup.

Also, since we know Earth is spherical and day and night is constantly somewhere simultaneous somewhere on Earth (when it's 1 AM at your place, it's 1 PM on the opposite side). And morning and eventing is consistently moving around the planet. Exactly which time zone did the author refer to for the creation events? Why did God wait between the days for a specific time zone? Was it based on the day and night in Israel? Or was it Greenwich time? UTC?

Obviously the author thought that the world revolved around one point on this planet only, and it was the point where he lived (wherever that was).

A universe with 22 sixtillion stars wouldn't have to be created during Israel day time and have to be on hold for 8-10 hours overnight.

It's obviously not a scientific story.

Lol. Not to mention the Bible was written when the Earth was still flat.