where did the universe come from?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Let me guess. You want us to conclude they came from g/God.

Hey theres a great idea. Lets use the concept of God to explain everything, then we dont have to figure anything out and can get on with praying 😉

Originally posted by eamon o
Hey theres a great idea. Lets use the concept of God to explain everything, then we dont have to figure anything out and can get on with praying 😉

It works very well, the other day I prayed a microchip into existence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It works very well, the other day I prayed a microchip into existence.

Yeah, but it was only an 8080, 4 megahertz. I saw that chip, big deal🙂

uh i think it came mail order, some delivery guy showed up at the door with it one day and i foolishly signed for it.

Originally posted by convect
What's the current state of the art of thinking on where the Universe itself came from? What was "before" the Big Bang, if such a term has meaning? How much of the current cosmological speculation is testable?

I'm pretty well versed in fluid physics (at least for the atmosphere) and have a light smattering of tensors and general relativity and quantum m ...[text shortened]... hanics, so go easy on me. But I'd like a semi-technical, semi-popular update on the topic.

The universe never came from anything.
It's always been there.

Sometimes it sucks up and sometimes it blows out. See it like an irregular prostitute of sorts.

Originally posted by shavixmir
The universe never came from anything.
It's always been there.

Sometimes it sucks up and sometimes it blows out. See it like an irregular prostitute of sorts.

Why do you date it, if it has always been here?
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
Where did the Universe come from? The Universe has always been.

Sort of kills that billions of years old dating thing doesn't it, if it has
always been? I guess that is like the circular straight line, another
prime example of science the faith that isn't faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sort of kills that billions of years old dating thing doesn't it, if it has
always been? I guess that is like the circular straight line, another
prime example of science the faith that isn't faith.
Kelly

…Sort of kills that billions of years old dating thing doesn't it, if it has
always been? ..…

Suppose there was a “before” the big bang and suppose the “big bounce” theory is in fact the correct theory, then it would still be meaningful to talk about so many billions of years since the universe was a singularity -thus the concept of dating would not be “killed” -it would simply be redefined as dating FROM that last time (or the only time? -makes no difference to the argument either way) when the universe was a singularity.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do you date it, if it has always been here?
Kelly

You date it to keep track of events that occured and to use as a reference. D'OH.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You date it to keep track of events that occured and to use as a reference. D'OH.

Except you are saying two things here, the universe is eternal and
it is a few billion years old; again it seems like science when it comes
to this topic is filled with things like this.

Straight lines that are really circles
Eternal universe that is a few billion years old
Events that are not occurrences’
Aimless, goalless processes that designs things
and so on.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Sort of kills that billions of years old dating thing doesn't it, if it has
always been? ..…

Suppose there was a “before” the big bang and suppose the “big bounce” theory is in fact the correct theory, then it would still be meaningful to talk about so many billions of years since the universe was a singularity -thus the concept of dati ...[text shortened]... nly time? -makes no difference to the argument either way) when the universe was a singularity.[/b]

Redefined, wow if that can happen how do you trust anything that
you date since it can be restarted?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Redefined, wow if that can happen how do you trust anything that
you date since it can be restarted?
Kelly

“dating” simply means the length of “timing from” some arbitrary defined point in time so a “date” can be thought as simply the the length of “time from” some particular point of time -yes?

1, On the 24-hour clock, we measure the time of day from midnight which, if you like, can be defined as when the sun is exactly on the opposite side of there Earth from where you stand.

2, At every midnight the 24-hour clock cycle “restarts” and the time is said to be hour=0.00 at that first moment when the new day officially starts.

So, “therefore” (according to your erroneous logic):

3, if somebody tells you that it is 21.00 hours on the 24-hour clock then you should not “trust” that it is 21 hours from midnight;
- because how can you “trust” anything that you “time from” when it can be restarted?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“dating” simply means the length of “timing from” some arbitrary defined point in time so a “date” can be thought as simply the the length of “time from” some particular point of time -yes?

1, On the 24-hour clock, we measure the time of day from midnight which, if you like, can be defined as when the sun is exactly on the opposite side of there ...[text shortened]... midnight;
- because how can you “trust” anything that you “time from” when it can be restarted?

I'm aware of dating, so now your saying the universe is eternal,
and dates people are coming up with are just from the last reset,
and if there are resets out there, is there anything that could make
a dating method think an event is older than it shows? After all, all
matter is eternal and many claim it is just billions of years old if they
can be off by an eternity one way why not off by billions of years old
the other way?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm aware of dating, so now your saying the universe is eternal,
and dates people are coming up with are just from the last reset,
and if there are resets out there, is there anything that could make
a dating method think an event is older than it shows? After all, all
matter is eternal and many claim it is just billions of years old if they
can be off by an eternity one way why not off by billions of years old
the other way?
Kelly

……so now your saying the universe is eternal, ...…

No. Read what I actually said -I said IF there was a “before” the big bang then it would make no difference to the validity of dating -the ”IF” is the operative word here.

…After all, all matter is eternal. .….

Firstly, the “dating” of things in science generally doesn’t extend directly to the “dating” of matter itself -unless it is radioactive and therefore has a half-life, there is no direct measurement that anyone can make to show “how old it is” (even with that radioactive matter, it would have generally have been made from other matter through nuclear reactions and that matter wouldn’t have been so much “created“ as merely “transferred). We can only “date” non-radioactive matter indirectly by extrapolating from the known laws of physics and the current state of the universe to estimate how far back the big bang happened.

Secondly, even if the “big bounce” theory is correct, matter wouldn’t be “eternal” because, as soon as the “singularity” expanded and was no longer was a “singularity” , there would be no matter because, instead, there would have been just pure energy. Later on, when the universe expanded and cooled enough for matter to form, much of that energy would have been converted to matter and in accordance to the equation E=mc^2.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not the “big bounce” theory is correct, all the matter in our universe was still created during/after the big bang and, if there was a “before” the big bang, that same matter couldn’t have existed “before” the big bang (although, presumably, there would still have been matter before the big bang that was destroyed in the process? -makes no difference to the argument either way).

Therefore, there is no premise stated here to believe that our estimate of how far back the big bang happened is “a few billions of years off”.

Even if the “big bounce” theory is correct and the universe is eternal in that sense (although not the particular “universe” we are familiar with), how does it logically follow from:

1, the universe is eternal and the big bounce theory is correct.

That:

2, the estimate of how far back the last big bang occurred must be inaccurate

?
-that’s if that is what you are implying here?

The age of the Universe... If we have a bouncing universe, then we have to redefine either 'universe' or 'time' to make the question meaningful.

I say we define universe as "that universe from the most recent BigBang". Most of the cosmologists say today that the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion of years ( +/- 200 million of yeas). If we believe in the bousing Universe model we have to exclude earlier universes or the age of the universe will be meaningless, or infinit.

According to the BigBang theory, our universe has a beginning. It doesn't say that it has an end, the end, or the future fate, is not a part of BigBang theory. So the matter of a bouncing universe is a theory of itself. Some believe in it, others do not.

So saying that the universe has always been, and therefore the age of universe is infinite, or eternal, is not according to the present BigBang theory, and not according to the leading cosmologists. A bouncing universe is nothing more than a speculation, parallel to other speculative theories.

So what would we call a series of universa, one after another, in a bouncing state? I say that "multiverse" is a good word.

If we "define" forever" as "as much time as possible, within our universe" everything will be completely clear. Forever = 13.7 billion of years, nothing more, because nothing can be older than our universe.

If we try to measure the age of the preceding universe, we are just speculating, nothing more.