You didn't observe it, you can't observe it and even if you could, observing it would not tell you the underlying mechanics of what is — Hermeticus

Here you are simply wrong. How did Einstein invent his GR?

There is no underlying mechanics or underlying math. Thats what WE impose on it.

Well maybe there is underying mechanics. But thats merely described by math.

There are quantum fields. The idea is pretty simple. These fields can be described by Feynman diagrams, but only for perturbative approaches. The non-perturbative approach CANNOT use Feynman diagrams. At least thats the prevailing view. So what then? Im not sure yet but I have an idea.

The basic quantum fields are three massless Weyl-fields (rishons) interacting by 7 gauge fields. There is a massless graviton field. But the gravitons are not pointlike, solving infinities. No strings but kinda similar. Later I write some more about the arena on which this is all happening. With a surprising interpretation of dark energy.

So one way or another, it seems quite implausible that "there was nothing before the Big Bang", both in terms of the actual physics, as well as any sort of conceptual coherency to this idea. — Seppo

Are you saying that there was a 'before' before time? Was there any time at all, or perhaps there was more than one time. Do you mean time as an invented physical term or as our life-experiential time. If you say they are the same then what makes you so sure?

or perhaps there was more than one time. — magritte

Hawking invented imaginary time to take care of the time before time. Multiple times always shift the problem.

Hawking's imaginary time turns time into space and nowadays they say this is also what gravity is. So with Hawking's picture the universe is not eternal but as he says springs from nothing. Something springs from nothing for Hawking because energy is balanced with gravity such that it is just force and thus can spring from nothing. Before someone has a theory of an eternal universe they need to have a theory of a universe finite in time, otherwise you are begging the question by pushing it back in time

He's just a garden-variety crackpot, all smoke and no fire.

'Time' is a metric of asymmetric change (i.e. irreversible physical transformations). In the absence of any asymmetry (i.e. no orientation whatsoever) such as at / below the planck scale, which is also prior to the BB, 'time' is not measurable.

I think it'sYOU who is the crackpot. Only your crack doesnt really crack anything.

:lol: ok bud

The PBS digital series has said that entropy comes from quantum physics, that time comes from entropy, and that gravity comes from time. So it seems the quantum is the root of gravity. How this works is what present research in studying. Quantum gravity!

Time' is a metric of asymmetric change — 180 Proof

No. Time is just a coordinate on a manifold. This time coordinate has a varying pace. Together with space it forms the whole of spacetime, Entropic time shows the asymmetry you talk about. There is no metric of asymmetric change. Where did you get THAT from? The problem with 4d smooth clasdical spacetime is that it contains potential singularities and that it's supposed not to lay in a higher dimensional space. Crackpots like him above are not able to leave their safehouses. Be it because of lack imagination or because of fear (which doesnt take awsy the fact though that they possess SOME knowledge. That of math, the easiest part though, but nailing him down). When no time is there before the bang it just cant bang. However imaginary you make time. Right. Now look for things untrue mister wiseguy!

The PBS digital series has said that entropy comes from quantum physics, that time comes from entropy, and that gravity comes from time. So it seems the quantum is the root of gravity. How this works is what present research in studying. Quantum gravity — Gregory

Now here is a sensible thing said!

He's just a garden-variety crackpot — Seppo

If it's the garden variety then its allright with me. Much to be learned from flowers!

Unlike you, I don't just regurgitate something I read or parrot whatever I heard; I translate as much jargon as I can into my own words or phraseology once I've thought through the relevant concepts. Trying thinking things through a bit before just bloviating truisms, etc.

*hugs the universe* They'll never figure you out.

What on Earth are you talking about? Empty verbiage. Though speaking of oneself as a parrot DOES show a sign of intelligence. The parrot is the sublime allegorical metaphore of crackpots, cracking without substance but loud sounds. Oooooh, I like this! Polemics!

This is exactly the reason there could NOT have been a big bang! — Prishon

Remember, the Big Bang, despite the imagery it evokes of matter flying apart in an expanding bubble, is all about space i.e. the Big Bang is simply the creation of space. The Big Bang singularity is matter (mass) squeezed to a single point, volume = 0. Density of the big bang singularity = (all the matter/mass there is)/0 = Not allowed! Hence The Big Bang (create space)!

Its not about the "creation" of space. Its about the expansion of space. The BBT, at least the parts that are well-corroborated and widely-accepted, doesn't include anything about a "beginning of the universe" or "the creation of spacetime". Its not a theory of origins. Its a theory of the universe's development from a hot dense early state, to the expanding/cooling state we presently observe.

Compare it to how evolution isn't a theory of how life began, but how it developed from some prior state to the currently observed state.

Its not about the "creation" of space. Its about the expansion of space. The BBT, at least the parts that are well-corroborated and widely-accepted, doesn't include anything about a "beginning of the universe" or "the creation of spacetime". Its not a theory of origins. Its a theory of the universe's development from a hot dense early state, to the expanding/cooling state we presently observe.

Compare it to how evolution isn't a theory of how life began, but how it developed from some prior state to the currently observed state. — Seppo

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state. — Wikipedia

:up: My bad for not thinking/reading before posting but it was such a satisfying explanation for me.

Its an extremely common misconception/error, and one that science educators/communicators and popular science journalism is constantly propagating. Lots of popular-level articles and videos that casually refer to the Big Bang as the creation, origin, or beginning of the universe, when the accepted theory simply does not include any such thing.

Its an extremely common misconception/error, and one that science educators/communicators and popular science journalism is constantly propagating. Lots of popular-level articles and videos that casually refer to the Big Bang as the creation, origin, or beginning of the universe, when the accepted theory simply does not include any such thing. — Seppo

Great! So, I've been wrong all this time. :roll:

Its about the expansion of space. — Seppo

Any ideas why space would need to expand?

the prevalence of the misconception also probably has something to do with the rather aggressive propaganda campaign on the part of theists/Christianity/the RCC in particular to speak into existence an equivalence between and/or corroboration of the Christian creation myth by Big Bang cosmology.

Maybe the universe did have a discrete beginning or creation, but its not a part of any accepted or established physical theory.

The BBT, at least the parts that are well-corroborated and widely-accepted, doesn't include anything about a "beginning of the universe" or "the creation of spacetime". Its not a theory of origins. Its a theory of the universe's development from a hot dense early state, to the expanding/cooling state we presently observe.

Compare it to how evolution isn't a theory of how life began, but how it developed from some prior state to the currently observed state. — Seppo

Excellent point! I'll be sure to use this formulation of "origins" (or their current lack of theoretical explanation) in further discussions to clarify the distinction between metaphysics & physics on this topic. :up:

Sure; dark energy. But that's about all we know, its called "dark" mostly because we have no idea what it really is or how it works :razz:

:up:

the prevalence of the misconception also probably has something to do with the rather aggressive propaganda campaign on the part of theists/Christianity/the RCC in particular to speak into existence an equivalence between and/or corroboration of the Christian creation myth by Big Bang cosmology.

Maybe the universe did have a discrete beginning or creation, but its not a part of any accepted or established physical theory. — Seppo

So, you see the hand of religious types in the invention and perpetuation of the myth that the big bang is about the origins of the universe. Come to think of it, it does further the agenda of a creation stories. :up:

Sure; dark energy. But that's about all we know, its called "dark" mostly because we have no idea what it really is or how it works :razz: — Seppo

:up:

And it continues to this day; William Lane Craig is a particularly egregious case, he continues to deliberately misrepresent contemporary cosmology as providing support for his Kalam cosmological argument, specifically the premise that the world/universe began to exist (and no doubt other apologists/theologians follow his lead here).

Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. No accepted or established scientific theory tells us anything either way.