this is impossible for most people to comprehend. Modern science says that the universe has always existed and always will exist.

 

You can argue a cycle of implosions and inflations took place but what happen before the first cycle? 

 

The bang of bangs? but what caused this? 

 

 

We have a limit of about 14 billion years of our visbility in our universe. Lets just say our universe is the first one. What happened before that? 

 

 

Also, is there any time in the "deepest" center of a black hole? 

Views: 102

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Modern science says that the universe has always existed and always will exist.

 

Science says no such thing.  Modern science doesn't KNOW the answer to that particular question, though it is looking.  The prevalent line of thinking right now is that the universe did have a beginning and that there technically was no "before" the universe, because time also began at the Big Bang.  Since "before" is a concept of time, there could have been no such thing as "before" when time did not exist.

You say that science doesn't say that yet you say a concept before time is impossible. Love the contradiction there. Amazing. 


Also does anyone know if time exists in the middle of a black hole? Light can't escape it and nothing can go faster than light. It breaks physics I know that much.
That isn't what I said, so it IS amazing that you managed to see that.  I said that science doesn't KNOW, and then explained the prevalent line of thinking (in other words, what science thinks is probably the case).  Science doesn't claim to know, but it does claim to have an idea about what might be the case.
The reason I ask about the black hole and time is that if we have spots in our universe where time doesn't exist then why couldn't there be a timeless universe.. Why can't we have a time before time? Then we could trace back a definite point of origin. Which would be a great day in science.
Time is closely connected to space to form space-time. If there is not time in a place in the universe then there is no space either.

I've read this position elsewhere. To my best knowledge I have to agree with Galen. It is possible that the Universe always existed, it might not be so, but we can't tell because the theory that could inform us (General Relativity) breaks down in a (projected) singularity (at present still a synonym of surrender) also the case inside a black hole. And we don't have yet a theory that could inform us about what happens to spacetime whether it be loop quantum gravity, string theory or one of the other theories of quantum gravity or whether the singularity appears in space or space inside the singularity.

There seems to be an inversion of the role of space and time at the event horizon of a black hole. As seen from the outside time slows down to complete stop at the event horizon (redshift becomes infinite) while the black hole in it's entirety has a temperature, radiates away in surrounding space under conservation of information.

To me saying that there is nothing before big bang is like saying that in the origin of a river water materialises from nothing, and we know this is not true. I'm a platonist in this regard, because Plato was the first one to postulate that the universe is eternal and based on absolute principles.
I agree with that. The word 'beginning' simply makes no sense in science, everything is simply transformed, and any pursuit to establish a beginning concept has more to do with religious instincts rather than scientific instincts and I find both quests are awfully similar at that point. I find no quandary with an eternal universe, either metaphysically, or in practical terms.
Polysemy. You have to be aware that to a physicist, as far as the Big Bang is concerned, the word 'beginning' doesn't mean the same thing as 'beginning' does to the hoi polloi.  It could (or should) be a completely different word.
Such as to 'reduce' a chemical does not mean to subtract away from it, 'respiration' of cells does not mean that the cells are 'breathing', the 'weight' of an object is not measured in kg as does its mass but as a force in Newtons, etc.

To me saying that there is nothing before big bang is like saying that in the origin of a river water materialises from nothing, and we know this is not true.

 

And to cosmologists, saying that there is nothing before the Big Bang is like saying that there is nothing South of the South pole, which makes more sense. To each their own.

Thank you for understanding what im talking about jaume.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service