Why? I would like to hear your explanation.
The Big Bang Theory says nothing about what happened before a certain point of our universe for a very simple reason, there is nothing before a certain point in our universe, which is the beginning. There is no time, there is no space, there is no matter, and there is no energy. That is what I told @T_aquaticus and that is a scientific fact.
Now as far as Nobel prize winners, if @T_aquaticus or you want to prove E = mc squared is not true, that is fine with me, but until you or Louis Krause or Sean Carroll do so we will have to go with the fact that the universe was created out of nothing in the Beginning.
@T_aquaticus, the letter in the Scientific American to which @pevaquark referred supports the fact that the universe has a Beginning and Alan Guth is one of the authors.
That’s just an assertion with no evidence to back it up.[quote=“Relates, post:176, topic:37310”]
Now as far as Nobel prize winners, if @T_aquaticus or you want to prove E = mc squared is not true, that is fine with me, but until you or Louis Krause or Sean Carroll do so we will have to go with the fact that the universe was created out of nothing in the Beginning.
[/quote]
Sean Carroll wrote an entire article on his idea of how one universe can give birth to a new universe. You can read it here.
As to Lawrence Krauss, he proposes that there were quantum fields that existed prior to the emergence of our universe, and it is those quantum fields which produced our universe. You can read a review of his book here.[quote=“Relates, post:176, topic:37310”]
@T_aquaticus, the letter in the Scientific American to which @pevaquark referred supports the fact that the universe has a Beginning and Alan Guth is one of the authors.
[/quote]
Just as lightning has a beginning, but no one says that lightning comes from nothing because it has a beginning.
4 Likes
He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.
from the review in the New York Review of Books of the book by Laurence Kraus. @T_aquaticus, why do you cite this review what trashes the argument of this book? Did you read it? I told you it was garbage and this peer review indicates that I am right.
There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping.
Sean writes in his article that he is arguing against the “traditional” version of the Big Bang Theory, which is the current view, and guess what? This is the view that I espouse.
So why do you say that there is no evidence for the current version of the Big Bang Theory. Have most scientists lost their minds? Is it true that science has abandoned Einstein’s theory because of questions about “quantum gravity?” Surely not.
As I said before speculation must not be confused with scientific fact, especially speculation based on very thin ice like this. What we do not need is a manufactured fake reality and false facts.
We need to acknowledge the fact that science accepts that the universe has an absolute Beginning, and it was created out of nothing. even if we don’t agree with it.
You don’t have to believe in God, just because it logically follows that God created the universe. We still have freedom of conscience in the US. .
you could as well have replied “Karl Marx”
Okay, I see that this is really going to go nowhere. @T_aquaticus tried multiple times to explain and I did perhaps twice as well. Nobody is questioning the smashing success of the Big Bang Theory to accurately predict what has happened from 0.000000000000001 seconds after the universe began. It does an amazing job bringing us early nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background, etc. What it does not explain is what happened before that time. Inflationary cosmology is part of explaining what happened before that time which is still up in the air. But even that cannot explain what happened before 10^-35 seconds or so. And guess what? None of these unknowns are a problem for the Big Bang Theory which enjoys smashing observation successes.
We don’t know what happened before these different epochs. Science does not accept the universe had an absolute beginning (i.e. the entire bouncing cosmology model would say it doesn’t which a lot of cosmologists espouse), nor does is it a fact that it was created out of nothing. The word created shows your bias here as well.
4 Likes
EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THAT 
That makes no sense
That is exactly what it was meant to state 
Why would you ignore Krauss’ own words? He says that there were quantum fields, and quantum fields are not nothing.[quote=“Relates, post:178, topic:37310”]
Sean writes in his article that he is arguing against the “traditional” version of the Big Bang Theory, which is the current view, and guess what? This is the view that I espouse.
[/quote]
Nowhere does Sean Carroll say that the traditional view has the universe coming from absolutely nothing.[quote=“Relates, post:178, topic:37310”]
So why do you say that there is no evidence for the current version of the Big Bang Theory. Have most scientists lost their minds? Is it true that science has abandoned Einstein’s theory because of questions about “quantum gravity?” Surely not.
[/quote]
There is evidence for the current Big Bang theory. The evidence includes redshifted galaxies and the cosmic microwave background. These are the two main evidences for the expansion of the universe from a small point. [quote=“Relates, post:178, topic:37310”]
We need to acknowledge the fact that science accepts that the universe has an absolute Beginning, and it was created out of nothing. even if we don’t agree with it.
[/quote]
You are putting words in the mouths of scientists.
So I take it you are not interested in actually engaging in a conversation outside of hurling insults?
I actually explained why it is an embarrassment in the paragraph that stated it to be one that you even quoted. So I take it you just don’t get it but feel an insult hurled at you for believing the dragon in the garage to be a sound argument. It might be because you never asked yourself what you ask me, so I hoped my comment would give you the “AHA” effect / eureka moment to understand why the dragon in the garage or Russell’s teapot is such an intellectual embarrassment as a comparison to God just because of what you asked. So read it again and ponder over it. The effect of realising it yourself is much better than if I would explain it to you. Just apply some critical thinking to the dragon in the garage and you might have better luck next time.
Previously, you wrote:
" Arguments like comparing the philosophical hypothesis of a creator God with the the claim to have an invisible dragon in your garage are an embarrassment for any intellectual."
All I was asking for is why that is an embarrassment.
And still no explanation . . .
You managed to quote a sentence from that paragraph, good, so now read the whole paragraph again that you have quoted successfully before. There is such thing called context that is useful to apply when reading consecutive sentences. So read the whole paragraph again. Remember, I said that I explained why it was embarrassing [quote=“marvin, post:186, topic:37310”]
I actually explained why it is an embarrassment in the paragraph that stated it to be one
[/quote]
Then ask yourself what my comment on your question
was
EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THAT
as an explanation for why the claim of having an invisible dragon in your garage is intellectually embarrassing.
I am sure you will work it out eventually
Do not quantum field exist in time and space? How can they exist with out time and space?
Current scientific theory says that there is no times and space before the Big Bang, unlike today after the Big Bang. He is comparing “nothing” in space today and saying that it was the same before the Big Bang.
We should I or anyone else take his words about something that he says is scientific which is not. [quote=“T_aquaticus, post:184, topic:37310”]
There is evidence for the current Big Bang theory. The evidence includes redshifted galaxies and the cosmic microwave background. These are the two main evidences for the expansion of the universe from a small point.
[/quote]
That evidence indicates that the form of that small point is unlike anything in the universe now and since. The evidence indicates that this small point included all time, space, matter, and energy of the universe, so it cannot be called properly small.
The evidence of E = mc squared which has been verified scientifically demonstrates that the Big Bang created the universe out of nothing. You cannot discuss this scientific process without discussing the scientific theory which make sense of that process.
You cannot logically, scientifically start a process in the middle of a process. You cannot discuss hoe to fly an airplane if you leave off the takeoff. You cannot discuss the Big Bang without the singularity which created the Big Bang and set off this process based on Einstein’s Theory.
Again please stop playing games. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but enough is enough. This is what the facts indicate, creation of the universe out of nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, and no space. If you dispute this, you need new facts, not a refusal to accept the old ones.
1 Like
I would like to read more about that.
What are you talking about? Or rather what current scientific theory are you referring to? One thing I know you are NOT referring to is the Big Bang Theory which as I’ve said many times before, works very well after 0.000000000000001 seconds. It does not describe what happened before that.
I’m sorry. What on Earth are you talking about? The Big Bang created the universe? That’s just silly talk as well.
Yes you can. I’ve described multiple times how to do it. @T_aquaticus and I have both explained that just like we do not have a comprehensive grasp on abiogenesis, that in no way shape or form invalides the mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution.
We don’t know a lot about the earliest moments of our universe. One universe or a multiverse? How to quantize gravity? Is our universe an infinite bouncing universe? Can we detect primordial gravitational waves thus solidifying inflation cosmology and along with it, even stronger evidence for a multiverse? Etc. Does that invalidate all the observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory which describes very well how the universe evolved after 10^-15 seconds after it began?
2 Likes
“The wheels on the bus go round and round,
Round and round,
Round and round…”
1 Like
How can you talk about evolution without talking about DNA?
Common Roger! You can do better than this. You are asking me a completely different question analogous to asking me:
How can you talk about the Big Bang Theory without using any data from outer space?
1 Like