Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

In the beginning

  1. Mar 8, 2008 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am curious. How many people object to a creation [like BB] event? I'm not suggesting this requires a 'creator', merely impossibly complicated circumstances.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 8, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Not sure what "impossibly complicated" means.

    The BB itself does not seem to be impossibly complicated, we already have models that are fairly simple and go back further in time.

    (some don't require anything very exotic in the way of extra baggage: no extra dimensions, no multiverse, no colliding branes)

    Assuming we can push the horizon back into time before the beginning of expansion, at what time point in the past were you thinking to place this "creation event" ["like BB" but presumably before the big bang]?

    Where on the timeline would you imagine that there are the "impossibly complicated" circumstances?


    It seems to me that our picture of the universe will always have areas that seem nearly impossible to understand----but I would hesitate to say we will never understand. The boundaries do get pushed back, sometimes even more quickly than one expects. So how can we call some part of our universe picture impossible to understand?
  4. Mar 8, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I find any beginning hard to swallow, it implies a unique event, so why would a unique event
    include us?

    I prefer the idea that the universe has been evolving over an eternity.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2008
  5. Mar 9, 2008 #4
    i'm just wondering wouldn't it necessarily inolve us and our planet/solar system/galaxy etc... ?

    we do exist after all.
  6. Mar 9, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well stated, marcus. It merely seems impossibly complicated to evolve something like a big bang because precursor events are observationally inaccessible. The events, in and of themselves, are not incomprehensible, just the landscape of possibilities.
  7. Mar 9, 2008 #6
    Chronos - I'm not saying this directed against you but generally when someone says something like “the universe is too complicated to have just happened, God or a creation event must be involved” my response is “Well is God too complicated to have just happened? For surely the creator is more complicated than the creation?” The concept that God had simply existed for eternity before he created the Earth/universe (or other religious creation stories I've come across) does not really push the horizon any further than what I know of cosmology.

    The notion of creation doesn't seem to be incompatible with scientific cosmology but it doesn't seem to add anything to it or resolve any mysteries.
  8. Mar 9, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Doesn't this belong in philosophy? Current scientific theories and observations neither require or are at odds with a moment of creation. Whether or not an individual 'objects' to this or not based, presumably, on their own personal philosophy or theology has no bearing on the science of cosmology.
  9. Mar 9, 2008 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Our current understanding of quantum theory conflicts at minute scales with GR. Our current understanding of GR results in singularities on large scales, like BHs and perhaps a creation event like the BB. Singularities are not necessarily features - they may be (and probably are, IMO) bugs that point to failures in our understanding. Cosmologies that feature singularities and creation events as theoretical constructs are suspect.

    Extrapolating some imagined expansion back to a BB does not prove a creation event, and calculating the GR equivalent of a very massive object to a singularity does not prove the existence of black holes. Astronomy is an an observational science, and cosmology is so far removed from astronomy that it can hardly be considered a science. There are many cheerleaders for "standard cosmology" these days and a paucity of critical thinkers practicing epistemology.

    The answer is right around the next corner? Yeah, right.
  10. Mar 9, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Phew! Lucky for us the standard model of cosmology contains neither of these things.

    Agreed. Again, fortunately, this is not a feature of the standard model of cosmology.

    Um, so if something is not astronomy it is not a science?? Interesting. I wonder what chemists think about that. Cosmology is very strongly an observational science that it obviously closely related to astronomy.

    There are a lot people who like to decry a strawman version of what cosmology is, without bothering to understand the difference between cosmology and what they erroneously believe cosmology to be. Actually you could probably substitute almost any branch of science for cosmology and the previous statement still holds.

    I've no idea what this statement refers to? The answer to what?
  11. Mar 15, 2008 #10
    well in your world there are things that we cant think with are imagination like making a new line formation that dosnt allready exsist, so it hints thats there can be a list made of the things we can or cant do at any givin point of time, and one of them is that we could never prove what happend before the big bang. there things that we cant do, just like proving to everyone that theres a creator or a point of creation. Blind faith people have in most things in life. i hope this would be posted in the correct section nexted time around, the concepts could led to better understanding of other matters of thought, and thats mainly not cosmology :/
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook