Origin of the Universe

[saturno2]

I think that
The current theory about the origin if the Universe,
has in one part a semi-religious conception
In fact, who raised for the first time about the
primordial atom, the Big Bang and the expansion
of the Univrerse, was the astronomer and priest Lamaitre.
As regards the primordial atom, " the egg of the Universe",
the point of infinite density, it is a theological conception.
It is absurd to think that the Universe arose practically
from nothing, as if it were the product of a
" cosmic magic "
What do you think?

[Chris Peterson]

I think that
The current theory about the origin if the Universe,
has in one part a semi-religious conception
In fact, who raised for the first time about the
primordial atom, the Big Bang and the expansion
of the Univrerse, was the astronomer and priest Lamaitre.
As regards the primordial atom, " the egg of the Universe",
the point of infinite density, it is a theological conception.
It is absurd to think that the Universe arose practically
from nothing, as if it were the product of a
" cosmic magic "
What do you think?

I think it is absurd to think that the Universe requires a "cause", since the idea of cause and effect is a property of the Universe itself, and like time and space, came into existence with the Universe.

[rstevenson]

I think the singularity named the Big Bang is more a function of the mathematics used to try to understand the early universe than a real thing. In a sense, once the math reaches a singularity it stops being descriptive, because not even math can say anything about nothing. No matter how elegant an answer it may be, nothing is nothing.

To insist now, given our relatively primitive state of knowledge about the early universe, that there was nothing “before” the singularity is itself a theological statement.

Rob

[Chris Peterson]

I think the singularity named the Big Bang is more a function of the mathematics used to try to understand the early universe than a real thing. In a sense, once the math reaches a singularity it stops being descriptive, because not even math can say anything about nothing. No matter how elegant an answer it may be, nothing is nothing.

To insist now, given our relatively primitive state of knowledge about the early universe, that there was nothing “before” the singularity is itself a theological statement.

Rob

Not at all. Regardless of any issues with singularities, we do understand quite well that space and time are properties of the Universe, and therefore the concept of "before" is meaningless.

[saturno2]

About this topic, two great school of thought
are opened.
The first school of thought support that
the Universe arose with the Big Bang,
from a point of infinite density.
Before the Big Bang there was nothing.
This theory is "armored" and somewhat dogmatic.
The second school of thought support that
before Big Bang there was matter, space and
time .
My vote for second school.

[Chris Peterson]

About this topic, two great school of thought
are opened.
The first school of thought support that
the Universe arose with the Big Bang,
from a point of infinite density.
Before the Big Bang there was nothing.
This theory is "armored" and somewhat dogmatic.
The second school of thought support that
before Big Bang there was matter, space and
time .
My vote for second school.

The first is supported by multiple independent lines of empirical evidence. The latter by none (which is why no such "school" really exists in the scientific community). It's not a matter of voting.

[saturno2]

(Second school of thought)
Penrose support that the Universe is cyclical
That the Big Bang was not origin of time
Occur Big Bang periodically. The time interval
between one Big Bang and the next is called an eon.
Penrose support an eternal Universe ( In absolute terms,
the Universe is neither created nor disappears) .

[Chris Peterson]

(Second school of thought)
Penrose support that the Universe is cyclical
That the Big Bang was not origin of time
Occur Big Bang periodically. The time interval
between one Big Bang and the next is called an eon.
Penrose support an eternal Universe ( In absolute terms,
the Universe is neither created nor disappears) .

Pure speculation, though, unsupported by any evidence at all... and at this point, untestable, and therefore not even a valid hypothesis.

[saturno2]

( Second school of thought)
In this school there are very bold theories-
One of them support que in the Big Bang arose
the Universe with positive time and at the same
time an anti-universe with negative time, back wards.
It support that when a particle arises, it is anti-particle
is created.
Anti-universe Time iqual 0 Universe
negative time Big Bang positive time

[Chris Peterson]

( Second school of thought)
In this school there are very bold theories-
One of them support que in the Big Bang arose
the Universe with positive time and at the same
time an anti-universe with negative time, back wards.
It support that when a particle arises, it is anti-particle
is created.
Anti-universe Time iqual 0 Universe
negative time Big Bang positive time

Why not go with leprechauns or fairies? Seriously, if you're willing to go with explanations that have zero evidence to support them, the sky is the limit.

[saturno2]

I do not want to annoy the readers. Nothing of that.
But, what is the idea?
I think that the point of infinite density, where
the Universe originated, according to the current
Big Bang theory, is the " Aquiles heel " of this theory.
Indeed. I believe that no one has empirically
demostrated the existence of that initial point,
and therefore, it is a pure theorical and theological
speculation.

[Orca]

I do not want to annoy the readers. Nothing of that.
But, what is the idea?
I think that the point of infinite density, where
the Universe originated, according to the current
Big Bang theory, is the " Aquiles heel " of this theory.
Indeed. I believe that no one has empirically
demostrated the existence of that initial point,
and therefore, it is a pure theorical and theological
speculation.

The pre-expansion singularity is implied by the BBT. The theory is highly successful in terms of predictability after the expansion of the universe. Predictions about what happened before the expansion are not really possible. It’s like hypothesizing about other universes; without a way to measure or test they are fun to think about but beyond our ability to validate.

Think about black holes for a moment. Though their existence was predicted by GR, Einstein was reticent to accept that such things would actually exist in nature. Then we discovered them! Infinite density is implied inside black holes because we don’t have any physics or chemistry that would prevent catastrophic collapse once you have a certain amount of material in a given vicinity of space.

Is it possible that the singularity is just a mathematical artifact and that there is a whole subset of physics happening inside black holes? Could some unknown form or structure of matter exist that is hyper-dense but not infinitely dense? Maybe! We’ll likely never know, because information (of a useful sort) can’t escape the event horizon.

On this side of the black hole, implied infinity is “close enough” because functionally, it doesn’t really matter if a black hole consists of a point that is infinitely dense or just very, very, very, very, very, very, very dense. In the same sense, it doesn’t really matter when you think about the pre-Big Bang singularity, either.

With this in mind, one can hardly conclude that accepting the implied existence of a pre-Big Bang singularity is tantamount to “theology.”

[saturno2]

Thanks, Orca, your explanation is very interesting
Well, let is leave infinite density and teology aside.
By a space-time singularity suddenly a point appears
containing matter, energy, space and time.
This is what I call " cosmic magic"
There must be some better scientific explanation
for the origin of the Universe

[Chris Peterson]

Thanks, Orca, your explanation is very interesting
Well, let is leave infinite density and teology aside.
By a space-time singularity suddenly a point appears
containing matter, energy, space and time.
This is what I call " cosmic magic"
There must be some better scientific explanation
for the origin of the Universe

Our current theory does not say that any singularity suddenly appeared.

Because a theory conflicts with your philosophical view, or with your intuition, is a baseless reason to reject it. This theory explains with great precision almost everything we observe in the Universe, which is why consensus for its accuracy is so high.