Stephen Hawking has a pretty in-depth answer to this question....
Hawking is an incredibly smart person and may very well be right, but from my perspective his argument comes across as pseudo-science and special pleading. He argues that "real" time does not exist before the big bang because the laws of physics breakdown into a singularity and therefore cannot be measured. Since it cannot be measured it does not exist.
An unresolved problem for Hawking's "time doesn't exist before the big bang" argument is that he has an uncaused cause to explain. If all spacetime is finite and existed in a space smaller than a electron and did so "eternally" before the big bang, how do you explain variation in the system? He argues that at the point of the big bang there was some variation, some expansion event that initiated the big bang. If time is a measurement of the duration of some variation or activity, and there must be variation within the closed system prior to the big bang to trigger the big bang, doesn't the big bang then need time in order to exist, if not how could there be any variation? Any variation seems to require that something has one set of properties at a point in time and another set of properties at another point. If there is variation then there is "linear" time. Something goes from one state to another. Hawking skirts this critical issue.
He says science cannot explain the uncaused cause that created the big bang because the big bang was a singularity and all laws of science broke down then, therefore it is impossible to determine the uncaused cause but it must have been a natural cause. Why must it have been? This seems to be the equivalent of arguing "there was a point in time when an uncaused cause caused the big bang, I don't know what it was, but I don't think it was god cause I don't like that option. Therefore since I don't like the god option we don't need god to explain the uncaused cause of the big bang." He may be right, but it is a weak argument.
@just_sayin: There are some things we are just not meant to know. Explanations for these types of things just end up with Bias Copouts answers that just lead to more questions.
Stephen Hawking has a pretty in-depth answer to this question....
Hawking is an incredibly smart person and may very well be right, but from my perspective his argument comes across as pseudo-science and special pleading. He argues that "real" time does not exist before the big bang because the laws of physics breakdown into a singularity and therefore cannot be measured. Since it cannot be measured it does not exist.
An unresolved problem for Hawking's "time doesn't exist before the big bang" argument is that he has an uncaused cause to explain. If all spacetime is finite and existed in a space smaller than a electron and did so "eternally" before the big bang, how do you explain variation in the system? He argues that at the point of the big bang there was some variation, some expansion event that initiated the big bang. If time is a measurement of the duration of some variation or activity, and there must be variation within the closed system prior to the big bang to trigger the big bang, doesn't the big bang then need time in order to exist, if not how could there be any variation? Any variation seems to require that something has one set of properties at a point in time and another set of properties at another point. If there is variation then there is "linear" time. Something goes from one state to another. Hawking skirts this critical issue.
He says science cannot explain the uncaused cause that created the big bang because the big bang was a singularity and all laws of science broke down then, therefore it is impossible to determine the uncaused cause but it must have been a natural cause. Why must it have been? This seems to be the equivalent of arguing "there was a point in time when an uncaused cause caused the big bang, I don't know what it was, but I don't think it was god cause I don't like that option. Therefore since I don't like the god option we don't need god to explain the uncaused cause of the big bang." He may be right, but it is a weak argument.
His explanation is just tainted by his worldview that there can be no God or supernatural. His explanation is slightly less good as any that proves that God created the universe.
@dshipp17: Where is your PROOF that God created the universe?
I've posted YouTube videos by the mile in the Religion and Science threads; I've also posted whole websites devoted to this subject; and, those are just the tip of the iceberg; were you ever paying any attention?
Hear ye the wisdom of the Omniscience, knower of all things (particularly regarding the trivial and the lewd).
Before the birth of the universe, before the very conception of time and space...
... there was bacon.
Sizzling, streaky, crispy, smoky bacon, in abundance throughout the void.
Omnipotence (my brother) took a bite of said mythical bacon, and in the process, created a mindbogglingly cosmological eruption of savoury, juicy goodness, from which spawned forth the entire universe as we know it.
Therefore, what existed before space, before time, what gives meaning to life itself...
@dshipp17: Where is your PROOF that God created the universe?
I've posted YouTube videos by the mile in the Religion and Science threads; I've also posted whole websites devoted to this subject; and, those are just the tip of the iceberg; were you ever paying any attention?
So what you're saying is....that you have NO PROOF.
@dshipp17: Where is your PROOF that God created the universe?
I've posted YouTube videos by the mile in the Religion and Science threads; I've also posted whole websites devoted to this subject; and, those are just the tip of the iceberg; were you ever paying any attention?
So what you're saying is....that you have NO PROOF.
No, unless you think YouTube videos or websites can't contain proof of anything. Those are the modern vehicles for knowledge. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity are now discussed on various websites and YouTube videos, so, why wouldn't a topic like proof of God be in those places? What, are you making a blanket claim of lack of information based on information that you haven't even seen, evaluated, or fully evaluated?
@dshipp17: Well you see, Scientific theories have something called EVIDENCE (I know right, a word that is pretty much unknown in religious communities). Religious theories USUALLY rely on ("I KNOW HE'S REAL BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM"). I would try and use logical arguments on religious people, but if logical arguments worked there would be no religious people.
@dshipp17: Well you see, Scientific theories have something called EVIDENCE (I know right, a word that is pretty much unknown in religious communities). Religious theories USUALLY rely on ("I KNOW HE'S REAL BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM"). I would try and use logical arguments on religious people, but if logical arguments worked there would be no religious people.
Believing that or having that worldview has nothing to do with going to the websites and YouTube videos to evaluate and than discuss the available evidence. So, apparently, you didn't go looking for the YouTube videos and websites; until you do that, you should reserved making commits out of full ignorance of the subject matter, or, based on second and third hand information that someone you sympathize with presented to you. There are very few people in religion that goes off of feeling Him; usually, they express experiences which amounts to evidence, as the experiences tend to be shared in every available church or Christian gathering; 100% of the people truthfully explaining similar events amounts to stronger evidence than the best proven scientific theorem, because, it still relies on some level of speculation about it's full truth; and, that's in addition to scientific, historical, and archaeological evidence supporting the YouTube videos and websites that I posted. Any logical argument you can make is a wash, if you're trying to refute something that you never saw and evaluated, as you have no idea what you're swinging at (e.g. I could have saw the sky turn red one day, but, although the sky is usually always blue, you'd never know of that one exception, if you never investigate, but, instead, postulate at near infinitum that the sky can only be blue). Evidence in science, more often than not, is open to interpretation and gets influenced by the observer's worldview, so, I don't know how that comment was supposed to override having reviewed the evidence/proof presented in YouTube videos and within websites that I presented.
@dshipp17: Then post the so called evidence to prove God's existence.
The pieces of evidence are posted by me throughout the Religion and Science threads, but, mostly the Religion thread.
Loading Video...
NASA
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
Loading Video...
Scientists have long known that miniscule particles, called virtual particles, come into existence from nothing all the time.
But a team led by Prof Mir Faizal, at the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada, has successfully applied the theory to the very creation of existence itself.
He said: “Virtual particles contain a very small amount of energy and exist for a very small amount of time.
“However what was difficult to explain was how did such a small amount of energy give rise to a big universe like ours?”
The cosmos came into being from nothing and remains 'nothing', according to the study
• Doubly Special Relativity – which takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe.
Under Inflation Theory the tiny energies and lifespan of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe.
Just to make things more complicated Dr Mir says we have been looking at the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong.
According to the extraordinary findings, the question is irrelevant because the universe STILL is nothing.
Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
He added that the negative gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy of the universe basically balanced out and created a zero sum.
Loading Video...
Asked if the remarkable findings and the convincing if complex solution removed the need for a God figure to kick start the universe Dr Mir said: “If by God you mean a supernatural super man who is the be all end all then yes he’s done for, you don’t need him.
What Prof. Mir was referring to is known as inflation. According to inflation the total positive energy in the form of matter exactly balances the negative energy in form of gravity, such that the total energy of our universe is still zero.
Prof. Mir - who also works on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN in Switzerland - further explained that by "nothing" he only meant absence of energy, and not the absence of laws of physics.
He said that for him the physics in space and time was only an approximation to some purely mathematical theory describing nature, and so space and time, and all the structure in it should be produced as a consequence of some purely mathematical theory.
Prof Mir said: “The story starts with laws of quantum mechanics, where the energy of a system at any given time known with absolute certainly. So, basically we cannot also state that a system has zero energy as that would be amount to specifying an exact amount of energy at a given time.
"This uncertainty which occurs due to quantum mechanics can lead to the creation of small amount of energy from nothing as long as it exists only for a very small amount of time. Such particle created out of nothing are called virtual particles. The consequences of the existence of such virtual particles has been tested experimentally.
The findings 'remove the need' for God, according to Prof. Mir
“The problem with this explanation is that such virtual particles can only have a small amount of energy for a very small amount of time.
"To get a universe the size of our universe from such small amount of energy, a theory called inflation is used.
"According to inflation the small amount of energy created from nothing underwent a rapid expansion, resulting in the formation of the universe as we see it today. During this time, the positive energy in the matter of the universe and negative energy in form of gravity was created such that they exactly balanced each other. The total energy of the universe still being zero.
Data from the large Hadron Collider at CERN was used to make the discovery.
“Even though inflation has been studied before, recently it has been studied using a new theory called doubly special relativity.
“According to doubly special relativity there is a maximum energy and no particle in the universe can attain an energy greater than that energy.
“Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity reduces to Newton’s theory for low velocities, doubly special relativity reduces to Einstein’s theory of relativity for low enough energies."
Nebulae like this are easily explained by the theory of cosmic inflation
He added: "Just as we do not observe any effect from Einstein’s theory of relativity for objects traveling slowly, we do not observe any effect from doubly special relativity even for particles at low energies.
"This maximum energy (Planck energy) is so large that even the particle at the LHC can be considered to possess low enough energies compared to it.
“However, the energy at the beginning of the universe is large enough to consider the effects coming from doubly special relativity.”
Universe university? University of Waterloo, Ontario where Prof Mir works
The team of three scientists, Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal and Mohammed M. Khalil analysed inflation using doubly special relativity and their findings have now been published in the prestigious Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP).
They also combined doubly special relativity with a theoretical minimum length scale in nature. It has been suggested by many scientists that the nature should have a minimum length scale.
Prof Mir added: “This means if you divide a stick into half, you cannot continue this process indefinitely. As you will come across a length scale below which space does not exist.
“This length is also so small that it is usually neglected by scientists when studding most phenomena.
"But it cannot be neglected when the beginning of the universe. The effect of the existence of this minimum length on inflation had been studied before by Brian Greene (Author of the famous book Elegant Universe).
"However, this is the first time that inflation has been studied by combining the doubly special relativity with the existence of a minimum length scale in nature.”
@dshipp17: Then post the so called evidence to prove God's existence.
The pieces of evidence are posted by me throughout the Religion and Science threads, but, mostly the Religion thread.
Loading Video...
NASA
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
Loading Video...
Scientists have long known that miniscule particles, called virtual particles, come into existence from nothing all the time.
But a team led by Prof Mir Faizal, at the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada, has successfully applied the theory to the very creation of existence itself.
He said: “Virtual particles contain a very small amount of energy and exist for a very small amount of time.
“However what was difficult to explain was how did such a small amount of energy give rise to a big universe like ours?”
The cosmos came into being from nothing and remains 'nothing', according to the study
• Doubly Special Relativity – which takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe.
Under Inflation Theory the tiny energies and lifespan of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe.
Just to make things more complicated Dr Mir says we have been looking at the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong.
According to the extraordinary findings, the question is irrelevant because the universe STILL is nothing.
Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
He added that the negative gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy of the universe basically balanced out and created a zero sum.
Loading Video...
Asked if the remarkable findings and the convincing if complex solution removed the need for a God figure to kick start the universe Dr Mir said: “If by God you mean a supernatural super man who is the be all end all then yes he’s done for, you don’t need him.
What Prof. Mir was referring to is known as inflation. According to inflation the total positive energy in the form of matter exactly balances the negative energy in form of gravity, such that the total energy of our universe is still zero.
Prof. Mir - who also works on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN in Switzerland - further explained that by "nothing" he only meant absence of energy, and not the absence of laws of physics.
He said that for him the physics in space and time was only an approximation to some purely mathematical theory describing nature, and so space and time, and all the structure in it should be produced as a consequence of some purely mathematical theory.
Prof Mir said: “The story starts with laws of quantum mechanics, where the energy of a system at any given time known with absolute certainly. So, basically we cannot also state that a system has zero energy as that would be amount to specifying an exact amount of energy at a given time.
"This uncertainty which occurs due to quantum mechanics can lead to the creation of small amount of energy from nothing as long as it exists only for a very small amount of time. Such particle created out of nothing are called virtual particles. The consequences of the existence of such virtual particles has been tested experimentally.
The findings 'remove the need' for God, according to Prof. Mir
“The problem with this explanation is that such virtual particles can only have a small amount of energy for a very small amount of time.
"To get a universe the size of our universe from such small amount of energy, a theory called inflation is used.
"According to inflation the small amount of energy created from nothing underwent a rapid expansion, resulting in the formation of the universe as we see it today. During this time, the positive energy in the matter of the universe and negative energy in form of gravity was created such that they exactly balanced each other. The total energy of the universe still being zero.
Data from the large Hadron Collider at CERN was used to make the discovery.
“Even though inflation has been studied before, recently it has been studied using a new theory called doubly special relativity.
“According to doubly special relativity there is a maximum energy and no particle in the universe can attain an energy greater than that energy.
“Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity reduces to Newton’s theory for low velocities, doubly special relativity reduces to Einstein’s theory of relativity for low enough energies."
Nebulae like this are easily explained by the theory of cosmic inflation
He added: "Just as we do not observe any effect from Einstein’s theory of relativity for objects traveling slowly, we do not observe any effect from doubly special relativity even for particles at low energies.
"This maximum energy (Planck energy) is so large that even the particle at the LHC can be considered to possess low enough energies compared to it.
“However, the energy at the beginning of the universe is large enough to consider the effects coming from doubly special relativity.”
Universe university? University of Waterloo, Ontario where Prof Mir works
The team of three scientists, Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal and Mohammed M. Khalil analysed inflation using doubly special relativity and their findings have now been published in the prestigious Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP).
They also combined doubly special relativity with a theoretical minimum length scale in nature. It has been suggested by many scientists that the nature should have a minimum length scale.
Prof Mir added: “This means if you divide a stick into half, you cannot continue this process indefinitely. As you will come across a length scale below which space does not exist.
“This length is also so small that it is usually neglected by scientists when studding most phenomena.
"But it cannot be neglected when the beginning of the universe. The effect of the existence of this minimum length on inflation had been studied before by Brian Greene (Author of the famous book Elegant Universe).
"However, this is the first time that inflation has been studied by combining the doubly special relativity with the existence of a minimum length scale in nature.”
You came out with a lot of stuff; I presented a piece of evidence for a proof of God. A virtual particle is still something; we're talking about something, even the conditions necessary for the production of virtual particles, from nothing. This does not disprove God, as, I'd counter, than, why is there no evidence of virtual particles involved in spontaneous creation throughout the Universe, given the distances the Hubble Space Telescope can see? A virtual particle is simply people manipulating a experiment for some desired outcome or to establish their theory; also, that information does nothing to counter the evidence for God that I presented; also, in the past (Religion Thread), I've produced evidence of Jesus, as a Christian, our proof biggest proof is the existence of Jesus, along with the proven history than supports the Biblical description of Him. Here's a great article on virtual particles: A Godless Universe
@dshipp17: Then post the so called evidence to prove God's existence.
The pieces of evidence are posted by me throughout the Religion and Science threads, but, mostly the Religion thread.
Loading Video...
NASA
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
Loading Video...
Scientists have long known that miniscule particles, called virtual particles, come into existence from nothing all the time.
But a team led by Prof Mir Faizal, at the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada, has successfully applied the theory to the very creation of existence itself.
He said: “Virtual particles contain a very small amount of energy and exist for a very small amount of time.
“However what was difficult to explain was how did such a small amount of energy give rise to a big universe like ours?”
The cosmos came into being from nothing and remains 'nothing', according to the study
• Doubly Special Relativity – which takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe.
Under Inflation Theory the tiny energies and lifespan of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe.
Just to make things more complicated Dr Mir says we have been looking at the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong.
According to the extraordinary findings, the question is irrelevant because the universe STILL is nothing.
Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
He added that the negative gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy of the universe basically balanced out and created a zero sum.
Loading Video...
Asked if the remarkable findings and the convincing if complex solution removed the need for a God figure to kick start the universe Dr Mir said: “If by God you mean a supernatural super man who is the be all end all then yes he’s done for, you don’t need him.
What Prof. Mir was referring to is known as inflation. According to inflation the total positive energy in the form of matter exactly balances the negative energy in form of gravity, such that the total energy of our universe is still zero.
Prof. Mir - who also works on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN in Switzerland - further explained that by "nothing" he only meant absence of energy, and not the absence of laws of physics.
He said that for him the physics in space and time was only an approximation to some purely mathematical theory describing nature, and so space and time, and all the structure in it should be produced as a consequence of some purely mathematical theory.
Prof Mir said: “The story starts with laws of quantum mechanics, where the energy of a system at any given time known with absolute certainly. So, basically we cannot also state that a system has zero energy as that would be amount to specifying an exact amount of energy at a given time.
"This uncertainty which occurs due to quantum mechanics can lead to the creation of small amount of energy from nothing as long as it exists only for a very small amount of time. Such particle created out of nothing are called virtual particles. The consequences of the existence of such virtual particles has been tested experimentally.
The findings 'remove the need' for God, according to Prof. Mir
“The problem with this explanation is that such virtual particles can only have a small amount of energy for a very small amount of time.
"To get a universe the size of our universe from such small amount of energy, a theory called inflation is used.
"According to inflation the small amount of energy created from nothing underwent a rapid expansion, resulting in the formation of the universe as we see it today. During this time, the positive energy in the matter of the universe and negative energy in form of gravity was created such that they exactly balanced each other. The total energy of the universe still being zero.
Data from the large Hadron Collider at CERN was used to make the discovery.
“Even though inflation has been studied before, recently it has been studied using a new theory called doubly special relativity.
“According to doubly special relativity there is a maximum energy and no particle in the universe can attain an energy greater than that energy.
“Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity reduces to Newton’s theory for low velocities, doubly special relativity reduces to Einstein’s theory of relativity for low enough energies."
Nebulae like this are easily explained by the theory of cosmic inflation
He added: "Just as we do not observe any effect from Einstein’s theory of relativity for objects traveling slowly, we do not observe any effect from doubly special relativity even for particles at low energies.
"This maximum energy (Planck energy) is so large that even the particle at the LHC can be considered to possess low enough energies compared to it.
“However, the energy at the beginning of the universe is large enough to consider the effects coming from doubly special relativity.”
Universe university? University of Waterloo, Ontario where Prof Mir works
The team of three scientists, Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal and Mohammed M. Khalil analysed inflation using doubly special relativity and their findings have now been published in the prestigious Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP).
They also combined doubly special relativity with a theoretical minimum length scale in nature. It has been suggested by many scientists that the nature should have a minimum length scale.
Prof Mir added: “This means if you divide a stick into half, you cannot continue this process indefinitely. As you will come across a length scale below which space does not exist.
“This length is also so small that it is usually neglected by scientists when studding most phenomena.
"But it cannot be neglected when the beginning of the universe. The effect of the existence of this minimum length on inflation had been studied before by Brian Greene (Author of the famous book Elegant Universe).
"However, this is the first time that inflation has been studied by combining the doubly special relativity with the existence of a minimum length scale in nature.”
You came out with a lot of stuff; I presented a piece of evidence for a proof of God. A virtual particle is still something; we're talking about something, even the conditions necessary for the production of virtual particles, from nothing. This does not disprove God, as, I'd counter, than, why is there no evidence of virtual particles involved in spontaneous creation throughout the Universe, given the distances the Hubble Space Telescope can see? A virtual particle is simply people manipulating a experiment for some desired outcome or to establish their theory; also, that information does nothing to counter the evidence for God that I presented; also, in the past (Religion Thread), I've produced evidence of Jesus, as a Christian, our proof biggest proof is the existence of Jesus, along with the proven history than supports the Biblical description of Him. Here's a great article on virtual particles: A Godless Universe
You came out with a lot of stuff; I presented a piece of evidence for a proof of God.
If you think what i posted is "a lot of stuff" then you are sorely mistaken, what i posted is a single scrap of scientific discovery that disproves the existence of "God" you posted a paragraph and a couple of videos of two people that do not have the clarity of mind to be talking about such things, since their views were skewed from the outset.
Loading Video...
Curiosity: Episode 1.
The universe isn't a comic book reality friend, there is no TOAA.
"If you think what i posted is "a lot of stuff" then you are sorely mistaken, what i posted is a single scrap of scientific discovery that disproves the existence of "God" you posted a paragraph and a couple of videos of two people that do not have the clarity of mind to be talking about such things, since their views were skewed from the outset."
What you posted was a large text of nothing related to the topic at hand; and, I just gave you information and told you that a virtual particle is not what you portray them to be; what you posted does not disprove the existence of God, given the totality of the information proving the existence of God. Those two people are physicists, with one extensively published, proving his theories, so, they very much have the clarity of mind to be talking about their profession; are you suggesting that they cannot apply critical thinking to the information that they're presenting or to information sent by other physicists? before you make such a blanket accusation, you need to demonstrate that what their saying is not sound physics by posted point for point rebuttal; all you've proven, with that statement, is that you have different worldviews and interpretation of available data; and, clearly, you couldn't have viewed both videos with the time allotted, so, again, you're speaking from ignorance and lacking an understanding of their background in physics. All I'm doing is presented data for my side; the article that I posted already brings into question your interpretation that the discovery of virtual particles, disproves God.
@tifalockhart: In the video I posted (the one I tagged you on) the narrator (who was actually reading Stephen Hawking's words) described what came before time.
Log in to comment