Comments on: What happened before the Big Bang?

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:21:44 +0000

You could have summed up this entire column by saying, “I don’t know what happened.”

Creationists win again.

By: forrest noble

forrest noble — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:13:23 +0000

john,

We can start with the logical statement that something cannot come from nothing. This idea is very old and is also based upon the first law of thermodynamics where: energy/ matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The next concept involves possibilities. There are two possibilities concerning the origin of our universe and time. If the beginning was infinite in time then there was no beginning to explain. If the universe is finite in age (13.7 billion or any other age) then it had a beginning. If our universe had a cause for its beginning then what was the cause of that and so on. In other words if everything has to have had a cause then you’re back to an infinite sequence of some kind or an infinite creating entity where there was no beginning of it.

The appropriate definitions required for this logic would be: Universe(s): The total combination of everything that has existence. Time: is an interval of change in form, motion, or relative position of matter. “Finite time”: would be a limited number of cause and effect sequences of change. Based upon these definitions, a beginning entity could not have had a cause. So whether finite or infinite, it is not logically possible, using these definitions, for the universe to have had a cause based upon the meanings or the words themselves “infinite time” and “finite time.”

So, based upon these definitions and the stated logic, the easily comprehensible idea/ answer would be that the universe had no ultimate cause regardless of what kind of universe that it may be.

But if one does not like these definitions and/ or the logic then there may be no other logical explanation then what came before the Big Bang, and before that etc.

jonathan forte and george,

If there always has to be a cause for every effect then what created god. This is the logical problem with requiring a cause for every effect. Bottom line is that the original cause could not have had a cause before that, whether it be an infinite or finite universe (that does not logically rule out a God, Gods, or any other original cause).

Does that make sense?

By: Poppadom Dave

Poppadom Dave — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:13:41 +0000

Will the end of the universe be the same as the beginning of the universe? I can’t comprehend what existed before it or where any sort of matter appeared from (some might use God to explain it – but then how did God come about?). It’s like comprehending death – it’s the same as before you were born: nothingness.

Perhaps eventually all matter will be reduced to its basic elements (The Big Rip) as the universe accelerates and expands/disintegrates. Matter will curve its way along toroidal paths (implying an external force that defines the universe topology) back to the centre before condensing and reaching infinite mass again to form another Big Bang (The Big Bounce where Quantum Mechanics comes into play). To the untrained eye, this may appear like a big bang event forming out of nothingness but is a loop of space-time.

… I used to be religious but it was because of being indoctrinated by other people from my childhood and allowing myself to follow like a sheep due to irrational insecurity. Now I’ve freed my mind – I prefer to keep an open mind and look at facts and evidence.

I’m comfortable in a Godless universe. I’ve realised that if you put your mind to it, you don’t need a God, deity, or whatever to exist righteously.

Or is God an atheist?

By: jonathan forte

jonathan forte — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:34:31 +0000

if god didnt create the universe then what did and if it was the big bang then what created that, and what created the thing that created the thing that created the big bang? there is no answer. so the only logical reasoning is that god created everything.

By: YouRang

YouRang — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:53:42 +0000

re #125 and Rutherford’s comment and the balloon. The only problem is that you drew spots on your balloon. You needed to glue coins to the balloon. The metric of the coins stays the same. I.E. the coins don’t inflate because there is something about being a coin or being a being on a planet explaining to a barmaid that generates a scale. The balloon represents just the non-unified metric associated with the gravitational field, and it changes size. The “something that generates a scale” are the rest of the fundamental forces seemingly (and maybe really) dissociated from the “force” of the gravitational field.

By: Chopper

Chopper — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:59:54 +0000

george, You wrote a ridiculous load of drivel. However you are still an idiot which is demonstrated by your critical report of this article by complaining that he doesn’t know exactly how it happened.
Then you propose that is was most “likely” God. Brilliant.

Great answer

By: george

george — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:55:11 +0000

You wrote what appears to be a brilliant article demonstrating your grasp of quantum physics and all the rest. However, you are still clueless which is demonstrated by all your “what ifs” and “coulds” not to mention “perhaps” and “possibly” and of course, the “we don’t really know”. What we do know is that the pathetic, Godless Universe that many of use are trapped in is one of “cause and effect”. What existed before this awful sewer came into being with the laws of cause and effect in place was likely “God”. God would be a being that is outside the laws of cause and effect, however, he gave us those laws to play with. Anything more than that would be over most peoples heads. It is what makes him God and us fools.