Could it Be That Our Universe Never Had a Beginning?
Here is an interesting scenario I have wondered myself, so I'd appreciate any input on it since I'm not a scientist:
Brian Flatt asked it:
Brian Flatt asked it:
Or maybe...time is like in calculus where, when you go backwards in time towards the big bang, you can approach but never actually reach the big bang itself. Scientists say that their science only works back to some infinitesimally small fraction of a second after the big bang, before that the science breaks down. So maybe, if you can approach but never reach the singularity itself, time HAS always existed, therefore space and the universe HAS always existed, which means there WAS no beginning, a beginning being only an illusion.What d'ya think?
This question is tucked away in this post of his.
16 comments:
Idle speculation without a firm understanding of the mechanism in which the physics breaks down. I think that the main reason for this train of thought is the unwillingness to say, "I don't know." We are able to figure out things down to 10^-47 seconds... That is amazingly early in the universe! We just don't have the tools to look at earlier, but are working towards it.
The beginning for THIS universe has a T=0. Although, with many theories regarding a multiverse, the concept of a T=0 is pretty meaningless.
My personal view on this is that we may be wrong about the nature of the singularity/big bang originator. Perhaps as a result of the different branes, its dimensions were not infintesimal (and even non-uniform explaining the universe's lumpiness). But I am much more an amateur physicist when it comes to this level of math.
I favor the loop quantum bounce theory.
According to the new theorem by Borde, Guth, and Vilekin we now know that the universe, including space and time, must have had a beginnig. The new Borde-Guth-Vilekin theorem establishes that any universe which has on average over it's past history been in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have a space-time boundary. People who try to avoid the beginnig of the universe by trying to use the period prior to the plank time where physics breaks down cannot do so any more. The new Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not depend on any particular physical description prior to the Plank time. It does away with all the attempts to avoid the absolute beginning to the universe.
Vilenkin states:
It is said that that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.
The theorem applies the the Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenerio and its branes and other dimiensions as well. It cannot be past eternal.
Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, "Inflation is not Past Eternal," 4.
Alexander Vilenkin, "Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,"11
Nobody knows.
But physicists can speculate in a way that's consistent with what's known about reality.
Ancient authors of wholly-books and modern dogmatists don't have that empirical foundation. All they can do is make stuff up.
I always use the analogy of looking down a long hallway. Each of the four corners of the hallway all converge at a "singularity" that you can't see beyond due to your vantage point. That "singularity" is the big bang. What's going on beyond that singularity in the hallway is anyone's guess, because how we measure space-time breaks down at that point.
So the universe/hallway itself might have always existed, but our sense of perception only goes back so far.
John,
If you are going to get into a debate with Craig then, unless you are able to control events by opening the debate with a proposal of your own choice, you are going to need a bit of science. A proposition of the form "Does God exist" opened by Craig would allow him to set out his usual agenda (Kalam - yawn) putting you on the defensive whereas "Does creation require a creator" and opened by you would enable the introduction of some new material. For instance, this video by Laurence Krauss might offer some good ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
A more fascinating and brilliant lecture I have yet to witness.
Craig likes to talk about the impossibility of an infinity of time. Using quotes from Hilbert he tries to show that the universe cannot be infinitely old. It is a good argument. However, it is Krauss' postulation that the universe will expand forever and at an ever-increasing rate. If Krauss is right then there will come a time when there will be volumes of space which are completely empty; no stars or galaxies to be seen anywhere, just a void. He does not state as much but without matter or light does it suggest that space or time cannot exist in such a locality?
Does a universe expanding without limit imply infinities can exist or does it perhaps suggest that there will come a time when the universe becomes so devoid of matter that it is inevitable that another "quantum fluctuation" will occur in some empty part of space giving rise to another universe? Is our universe just a natural development of an empty region of space in a previous universe?
I doubt Craig has any answers to such musings but to my mind it does throw a spanner at his confident assertions about the necessity for a creator.
It is possible that our universe is part of a much larger (perhaps infinitely large) multiverse, and our universe was formed out of natural processes occurring in that multiverse.
It is also possible that it is impossible for "nothing" to exist, and that the non-existence of our universe (or some other universe like it) is simply impossible. Physicist Victor Stenger expertly outlines this view in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis.
There's also the possibility that our universe was created by a super-advanced alien species that had achieved a technological singularity in a previous universe. This is the plot of Isaac Asimov's short story, The Last Question, which you can read here.
All of these possibilities are much more likely than a non-physical supernatural boogieman who magically wills everything into existence.
My own personal thought on the matter is quite simple.
The universe cannot have a beginning, because time cannot have a beginning.
In order to "begin", time must exist. But that means that in order for time to "begin to exist", time must exist - which means that time cannot begin.
Ergo, time cannot begin.
However, time is not necessarily infinite either, therefore there is something else which our minds cannot comprehend which "precedes (forgive the use of a term involving time) the universe.
We can't possibly hope to ever understand this since:
a) This universe only occurred once.
b) We cannot 'create' another universe
c) Our minds function on the assumption that we live in a time continuum, therefore all explanations of that which "precedes" the universe will be flawed
Perhaps new research will help? Perhaps it's due to "cosmic forgetfulness."
In any case, the God hypothesis is not credible.
Brian's suggestion has been made before. I first encountered it in a paper by the philosopher Quentin Smith. (BTW, Smith has done a good job of trashing a lot of Craig's arguments - if you're thinking of a debate with Craig, John, you definitely need to read Smith's papers.) It seems to me a perfectly legitimate position to take as a LOGICAL possibility. As such, it clearly disproves any claim that "the universe MUST have had a beginning."
As far as physical theories go, we are still left with "we don't know" as the only correct response to the question of what went on before the Planck time. Our physical theories are simply not complete enough to say anything sensible at this time (as Larian already said), though speculation abounds (colliding branes, loop quantum bounces, etc.)
Cole's remark is completely mistaken. The paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilekin in no way prevents one from taking the step Brian takes, of excluding the singular point (T=0) from the physical universe. Such singularity theorems are proven by considering the spacetime AROUND the singularity point, and all they prove is that world lines of particles cannot have infinite length when extended backward in time. They do NOT prove that an endpoint of the line must be part of the physical universe.
(In any case, these theorems rely on assumptions about the smooth nature of spacetime at arbitrarily small scales. This assumption is untested and may turn out to be wrong; for instance, if loop quantum gravity is right.)
The theory that Cole refers to also does not prevent things like brane collisions from being the source of the big bang. In fact, the limitations that this theory places on multiverse creation is not nearly as sweeping as Cole thinks it is.
You should read Victor Stenger's New Atheism chapter on the Nature of Nature. He has directly and publicly contradicted Craig, who mis-quotes Stephen Hawking and refuses to correct the mis-quote. Despite Hawking's current statements that time did not start with the big bang (as described in his book A Brief History of Time), many theists prefer to quote a paper by Hawking from twenty years earlier that has a simplified theory, does not take quantum effects into account and which states that time started at the big bang.
Something like the rabbit and Aquiles problem?
Seems a bit odd really, especially given that time is wrapped up in the dimensionality of space.
If I were to bet on anything, it would be multiverse. If nothing else, the universe has demonstrated that the notion of "just one" doesn't fit. Of course that is not reason alone to suspect a multiverse...
This fell asaid this:
Craig, who mis-quotes Stephen Hawking and refuses to correct the mis-quote.
But then turns around and says this:
many theists prefer to quote a paper by Hawking from twenty years earlier that has a simplified theory, does not take quantum effects into account and which states that time started at the big bang.
So Hawking REVISED his theory...OK...but to say that Craig is lying or is mis-quoting Hawking is a contradiction of your own words.
He said it for sure...although YOU CLAIM he backtracked and doesn't say it now.
Your complaint then should be that theists stop using what Hawking PREVIOUSLY said. Get it right.
Harvey,
So Hawking REVISED his theory...OK...but to say that Craig is lying or is mis-quoting Hawking is a contradiction of your own words.
Of course Craig is misquoting Hawking whether he is aware of it or not. If I said to Craig "Fritz is Australian. No, I meant Fritz is Austrian" then subsequently it would be wrong for Craig to quote me alleging that Fritz is Australian in full knowledge that I had corrected myself.
If I correct my opinion 5 minutes or 20 years after first making it makes no difference. Craig knew that Hawking had revised his thinking and therefore it is wrong for him to continue to punt Hawking's original singularity argument in support of his First Cause position.
Post a Comment