Origin of the Universe

[saturno2]

In an explanation of the origin of the Universe,
Wikipedia wrote:
" It is unknown the nature of the macro Universe
that precedes the instant in which our Universe
( to see observable Universe) was of the dimension
of a point with infinite density, known as
< space-time singularity > "
Wikipedia recognizes ( tacitly) that before the
point if infinite density there was a macro Universe

[Chris Peterson]

In an explanation of the origin of the Universe,
Wikipedia wrote:
" It is unknown the nature of the macro Universe
that precedes the instant in which our Universe
( to see observable Universe) was of the dimension
of a point with infinite density, known as
< space-time singularity > "
Wikipedia recognizes ( tacitly) that before the
point if infinite density there was a macro Universe

The use of "unknown" does not assume any such thing existed.

[saturno2]

In an explanation of the origin of the Universe,
Wikipedia wrote:
" It is unknown the nature of the macro Universe
that precedes the instant in which our Universe
( to see observable Universe) was of the dimension
of a point with infinite density, known as
< space-time singularity > "
Wikipedia recognizes ( tacitly) that before the
point if infinite density there was a macro Universe

The use of "unknown" does not assume any such thing existed.

Wikipedia wrote: " It is <unknown the nature> of the macro Universe " ...
Wikipedia did not wrote : It is unknown the macro Universe...

[saturno2]

An international consortium of countries have
installed in Argentina, at almost 5000 m high,
an ultrasensitive telescope called Qubic.
With this telescope, whose sensors work at low
temperatures, it is intended to measure the
radiation emitted in the Big Bang, at instant
10 raised to less 35 seconds, from point 0.
But the radiation that is sought has a special
wave structure called " mode B ".
Whit this project they want to confirm or
to discard the theory of the Big Bang.
Of course, the results should be studied
by other scientists, too

[Chris Peterson]

An international consortium of countries have
installed in Argentina, at almost 5000 m high,
an ultrasensitive telescope called Qubic.
With this telescope, whose sensors work at low
temperatures, it is intended to measure the
radiation emitted in the Big Bang, at instant
10 raised to less 35 seconds, from point 0.
But the radiation that is sought has a special
wave structure called " mode B ".
Whit this project they want to confirm or
to discard the theory of the Big Bang.
Of course, the results should be studied
by other scientists, too

They are not looking to either confirm or deny the Big Bang. That is accepted as about as close to a fact as anything can get. What they're looking for is whether the lambda-CDM theory of the Big Bang is accurate in its current form or needs refinement.

[bystander]

I think it's hubris to assume it doesn't need refinement. It probably always will.

[Chris Peterson]

I think it's hubris to assume it doesn't need refinement. It probably always will. :mrgreen:

There is good reason to think that the theory is incomplete. But I see no reason to think it will always remain so. The Universe is a pretty simple machine, and appears to be fully understandable.

[Fred the Cat]

Do you suppose Occam’s Razor might be imposed for the unknowns of the universe? We’ve searched for very complex theories but which one is the simplest?

To me, the easiest to believe has to include, “What function do the unknowns provide for the state of the universe to exist?” A Yin and Yang approach seems a balanced methodology where we should begin. Saying that, all matter must be composed of universal components – mixed equally.

[Ann]

Do you suppose Occam’s Razor might be imposed for the unknowns of the universe? We’ve searched for very complex theories but which one is the simplest?

To me, the easiest to believe has to include, “What function do the unknowns provide for the state of the universe to exist?” A Yin and Yang approach seems a balanced methodology where we should begin. Saying that, all matter must be composed of universal components – mixed equally.

But where's all the antimatter?

Ann

[Fred the Cat]

Do you suppose Occam’s Razor might be imposed for the unknowns of the universe? We’ve searched for very complex theories but which one is the simplest?

To me, the easiest to believe has to include, “What function do the unknowns provide for the state of the universe to exist?” A Yin and Yang approach seems a balanced methodology where we should begin. Saying that, all matter must be composed of universal components – mixed equally.

But where's all the antimatter?

Ann

A bold statement requires evidence I’m unlikely to provide so I’ll need to consult Yin and Yang. I’m equally unlikely to say how anti-matter can be produced but the fact that it can be, might be a start.

A simple mind makes simple ideas. I’d like to think there is a mind complex enough to simply piece together all the components coherently. Perhaps, behind the curtain, lies the answer and it'll take Toto to pull it back Perhaps, the curtain itself is a clue.

[Chris Peterson]

Do you suppose Occam’s Razor might be imposed for the unknowns of the universe? We’ve searched for very complex theories but which one is the simplest?

To me, the easiest to believe has to include, “What function do the unknowns provide for the state of the universe to exist?” A Yin and Yang approach seems a balanced methodology where we should begin. Saying that, all matter must be composed of universal components – mixed equally. :content:

MOND is far more complicated and difficult to reconcile with reality than dark matter.

[saturno2]

According to the images of JWST ( confirmed)
there were ancient galaxies that emitted their light
350 million years after the supposed origin of the
Universe.
They were well-formed galaxies.
The stars of these galaxies must have started
forming at least 500 million years before of
the supposed 0 point.
Cosmic inflation did not have time to form
these galaxies.
Before the singularity of the Big Bang there was
matter, ( and space and time, of course).
I think that the point of infinite density is rules
out of the origin of the Universe

[Chris Peterson]

According to the images of JWST ( confirmed)
there were ancient galaxies that emitted their light
350 million years after the supposed origin of the
Universe.
They were well-formed galaxies.
The stars of these galaxies must have started
forming at least 500 million years before of
the supposed 0 point.
Cosmic inflation did not have time to form
these galaxies.
Before the singularity of the Big Bang there was
matter, ( and space and time, of course).
I think that the point of infinite density is rules
out of the origin of the Universe

It remains unclear if the galaxies are that old. There are other possibilities not yet fully tested. Nor is their any absolute need for the stars to be that much older.

There is a very good chance this will change our understanding of the very earliest universe. I don't think anybody really thinks it will change our basic understanding of the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe, "before" which there was no matter or time or structure.

[saturno2]

The current concept of the origin of the Universe
is diluting.
Scientists, based on JWST images, have identified
6 very massive galaxies ( between 10,000 and
100,000 million solar masses).
These galaxies emitted their light 540 million
years after the supposed origin of the Universe.
They are well formed galaxies, One of them is
as massive as our Milky Way, but 30 times denser.
It is impossible for them to have formed in
540 million years.
If these galaxies are confirmed, the concept
of the origin of the Universe from singularity
of the Big Bang, would be definitively
rulet out.

[Chris Peterson]

If these galaxies are confirmed, the concept
of the origin of the Universe from singularity
of the Big Bang, would be definitively
rulet out.

Not even remotely.

[saturno2]

If there were galaxies forming
before of the point of infinite density
of the supposed origin of the Universe,
it means that the " nothing " before the
singularity was full of matter, stars and
other astrophysical objects.

[Chris Peterson]

If there were galaxies forming
before of the point of infinite density
of the supposed origin of the Universe,
it means that the " nothing " before the
singularity was full of matter, stars and
other astrophysical objects.

Nothing existed before the Big Bang, and few are suggesting otherwise. This data changes nothing in that respect. If confirmed what it does is to require the model be tweaked a little. That's all.

[Chris Alex]

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.

I often try to give a similar answer whenever discussing the question of what was before  the Big Bang, what caused it, namely that the question "does not apply", that it’s only valid within our universe and its physical laws, and I might try Stephen Hawking’s idea that it does not make any more sense than asking what’s north of the north pole, etc.

But then I am left with a feeling that my answer was an easy way out! Albeit the only sensical answer to give, possibly.

If this were the very first thing I heard in cosmology - that to ask in what state was the universe one second after the Big Bang makes sense, but to ask in what state was it one second before doesn’t - I would think that someone is messing with me!

But probably the real reason why I find the "does not apply" answer frustrating is that it leaves the mind empty-handed, the mind that always wants to ask why this? why that? how?

On a side note, asking what was "before", inasmuch as it relates to time, may well have for some people a kind of, say, existential dimension, but there is another question that should be equally frustrating for the hungry mind, yet few seem to care much about it, perhaps precisely because there’s nothing existential about it! The question is: What was right next to the Big Bang singularity? What was surrounding it? If you jump inside a black hole you supposedly would experience the end of time, but still, there is always space surrounding black holes. - And of course the answer would be the same easy one: there was no "next to", it was not even empty space, there was no "space".

Timelessness, spacelessness… Our physical brains will always struggle to imagine what these words refer to. Maybe it’s easy to utter the phrase "There was no space nor time before the Big Bang", but it sure is not easy to conceive! Big Bang minus one second, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on banging your head against the wall!

p.s. apologies for the long post but, what a topic!
p.p.s. and if one day science breaks on through to the other side of the Big Bang, I'll be so happy to discard my usual answer...