Question about the Big Bang

[ChildishFears]

I've heard that there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang--that time as we know it didn't exist..

Could someone explain this a bit more or list some books/websites to clear this up please

 

[Logic_Fault]

I've heard that there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang--that time as we know it didn't exist..

Could someone explain this a bit more or list some books/websites to clear this up please

My understanding of it is, essentially, that "time" is an inherent property of the universe (generally it's seen as something Einstein's Theory of Relativity proposes but in fact it was first proposed mathematically by one of his teachers). Since the universe didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, time didn't either. That's the quick and dirty version and, as I said, my understanding of it.

If you want to know more on a layman's level you could try Steven Hawking's classic A Brief History of Time. It's been years since I looked through it but I'm almost certain it would be covered. Other than that I can't give any real direction. I'm sure there are some good popular science books and web sites that cover it but I can't think of any off hand.

 

[Draconic]

I've heard that there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang--that time as we know it didn't exist..

Could someone explain this a bit more or list some books/websites to clear this up please

My opinion is that time is infinite and not linear.

I think that gravity eventually will pull everything back into a "ball" of sorts. Seeing as how black holes pull in light, all matter and energy in the universe will "condense", and the Big Bang repeats itself.

Of course, this is just a hypothesis. There isn't really much doubt that the Big Bang DID happen (in the scientific and educated community, anyway...) but really, we barely know one one-millionth of a percent about our universe. There are many MANY unanswered questions.

Right now, anything about what happened BEFORE the Big Bang is untestable, and really just conjecture. But just because we don't know something, doesn't meanwe need to put some sort of God there.

 

[uberd00b]

A good analogy I have heard is to say that asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole.

 

[Blue Olive]

This is a quite a big question since it's addressing the very nature of life and the universe. I don't know if the Big Bang theory works or not, but I think life plays a bigger part in the universe's creation than the other way around. Food for thought.

 

[juvenissun]

I've heard that there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang--that time as we know it didn't exist..

Could someone explain this a bit more or list some books/websites to clear this up please

If you google "time before big bang", you will have many hits. For example, one is HERE.

There is also a Christian view of time, which is as good as any current scientific understanding.

 

[ChildishFears]

Thanks you all for your responses, I will check out Stephen Hawking's book and the links.

 

[TheReasoner]

Hmmm. Reading up on some of Hawking's books as suggested is a good idea.

There are many theories out there as to what caused the big bang, what our universe will look like in the end and just general evolution of this universe. I do not believe in a "big crunch-big bang" theory as it does not explain how we can have such a high percentage of simpler matter, like helium and hydrogen in the universe - for example.

Anyway... I was trying to find an article I read in Scientific American about what you just mentioned. One which explains certain theories really well. Of course, as far as this universe is considered nothing was before it existed. And then, one can debate the nature of time for some... Hm. Time without coming to any conclusion.
[edit] I just found it! "The Cosmic Origins of Time's Arrow". You can buy it at http://sciamdigital.com or read the article if your local library has a subscription. It's in the June 2008 issue. Very interesting stuff

 

[KhlulHloo]

A good analogy I have heard is to say that asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole.

QFT!
What came "before" spacetime is almost exactly like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"
There is no "norther" than the North Pole and there is no "before" spacetime.

Trust me, as an extradimensional Being pseudo-sleeping in a non-euclidian space time under the ocean, I have a pretty good idea of what Im talking about

And so does S Hawking as well

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

There is also a Christian view of time, which is as good as any current scientific understanding.

Magical mysticism from start to finish and does nothing to explain time.

 

[TheReasoner]

Magical mysticism from start to finish and does nothing to explain time.

Oh, you know...

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, you know...

I think the creation method is better. Tell me why is it not scientific.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've heard that there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang--that time as we know it didn't exist..

Could someone explain this a bit more or list some books/websites to clear this up please

Some people believe that time began at the moment ohe Big Bang, and it's certainly intuitive. However, there is no evidence of this; all we know is that the universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years from a tiny volume to its current size. What went on before then is anyone's guess.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I think the creation method is better.

Which method would that be? The one where they scream "Goddidit!" until they're blue in the face?

The creationist "method" in the cartoon is the exact opposite of good science (hence the humor). You don't start with a conclusion and then pick and choose the evidence that fits it; you must account for all evidence that's found. If evidence is found that shows your claim is wrong then you modify your hypothesis/theory to take the new evidence into account. That's one of the major reasons science works so well to explain things. The old saying that science is descriptive, not prescriptive illustrates it well I think.

Tell me why is it not scientific.

Because "Goddidit!" doesn't explain anything. It's not a theory. It's not even a valid hypothesis. At best it's wishful thinking.

 

[TheReasoner]

I think the creation method is better. Tell me why is it not scientific.

It starts with a conclusion and looks for findings according to the conclusion. Which is the exact opposite of science.
Now, I believe God created the universe. I have no idea how, and I am not making any assumptions about how. True science would be to look at what facts are present and draw a conclusion based on that. What I see creationists do - which damages Christianity immensely - is to reject what evidence is presented because it doesn't fit their conclusion. This is unscientific. It has no place in science.
"God did it though I have no idea how" is a valid assumption. "God did it this exact way and all evidence to the contrary must be false" is not a valid assumption.

 

[juvenissun]

It starts with a conclusion and looks for findings according to the conclusion. Which is the exact opposite of science.

I believe in creation too. So that part has no problem.
I also understand the science as you described. It is not a problem either.

What I argued about is that giving conclusion FIRST, then trying to find support, is ALSO science. And it is, in many cases, a BETTER science. This way of backward thinking can be easily demonstrated in mathematical proof.

So, the Genesis Flood IS the conclusion. Then try to find ways to prove it. This is the essence and is the beauty of Creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

Which method would that be? The one where they scream "Goddidit!" until they're blue in the face?

The creationist "method" in the cartoon is the exact opposite of good science (hence the humor). You don't start with a conclusion and then pick and choose the evidence that fits it; you must account for all evidence that's found. If evidence is found that shows your claim is wrong then you modify your hypothesis/theory to take the new evidence into account. That's one of the major reasons science works so well to explain things. The old saying that science is descriptive, not prescriptive illustrates it well I think.


Because "Goddidit!" doesn't explain anything. It's not a theory. It's not even a valid hypothesis. At best it's wishful thinking.

Freshman level argument.

 

[Logic_Fault]

What I argued about is that giving conclusion FIRST, then trying to find support, is ALSO science.

No, it's not. Unless "bad science" is what you mean. No respectable scientist or institution goes on the quest for knowledge and discovery thinking they already know the answer, evidence be damned.

And it is, in many cases, a BETTER science. This way of backward thinking can be easily demonstrated in mathematical proof.

Science doesn't work that way. I'm really not sure where you're having a problem.

Here's an example: I'm a scientist. I've noticed that "X" event happens and I'd like to know why. I brainstorm with scientists in my field and we come up with an educated guess as a hypothesis based on what we know of similar phenomenon, etc. Note I said "educated guess" not "we come up with the answer." From this stage we perform experiments to gather data that will either support or refute our hypothesis. If we perform experiment "Y" and the evidence supports our hypothesis then all is well and good. More experiments and further refinement of our knowledge is needed but we're on our way. If we perform experiment "Y" and the evidence it provides with regards to event "X" is nothing like we expected we do not ignore the evidence. We do not twist the evidence so it appears to fit our hypothesis. What we do is go back to our original hypothesis and incorporate what we've learned, refining our explanation of event "X." Then we start all over with new experiments, helped in design by our results from experiment "Y." We also release our findings to the scientific community so that others can perform the same experiments and verify our results. This continues until we have a solid enough explanation that takes into account all of the evidence until such a point that our little hypothesis can be called a theory.

At least that's how real science works. So-called "creation science" works by claiming god did something--absolutely with no questions asked--and then goes out looking for evidence that confirms that. They cherry pick what fits and ignores, purposefully misinterprets valid science and generally twists things to fit. Anything they can't get to fit is simply ignored.

So, the Genesis Flood IS the conclusion.

Fine. How did you come to that conclusion? What evidence did you use that supports that conclusion? How, if you haven't looked yet and performed no science of any kind, can you say for certain that's the correct conclusion to come to?

Then try to find ways to prove it. This is the essence and is the beauty of Creationism.

That's the problem. Science doesn't "try to find ways to prove" things. Science searches for evidence that supports explanations. It doesn't start by saying something is absolutely true and then attempting, at all costs, to prove it's true.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Freshman level argument.

Refute it then. Or do you have no actual explanation for why creation "science" is better than real science?

 

[Markus6]

If you google "time before big bang", you will have many hits. For example, one is HERE.

There is also a Christian view of time, which is as good as any current scientific understanding.

Though not all Christians reject current scientific understandings.