THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING

[surreptitious57]

The debate in the other thread about how the Universe came into existence is very interesting but is not actually relevant to it as such. And so
I have started this thread instead which shall be specifically about that. And if you wish to discuss this please post here not in the other thread

Now I shall begin by correcting a very common misconception : namely that the Universe began just under fourteen billion years ago and also
came into being from out of nothing. A number of fundamental category errors here. First : what is referenced as this Universe is local cosmic
expansion. It does not mean the totality of all that exists. Second : it is not known what if anything happened before the Big Bang. So even if it
was the beginning of this Universe it may not have been the absolute beginning of everything. Third : nothing and absolute nothing are not the
same thing. Nothing is defined as the absence of matter and in physics is more commonly known as a vacuum. Absolute nothing as the name
suggests is the absence of absolutely everything. It can exist but only at the quantum level and only too for an infinitesimal time period. That is
because quantum fluctuations do not allow for it to exist more longer than is absolutely necessary. Nature it seems really does abhor a vacuum

Current scientific knowledge only goes back to the Big Bang. So anything which happened before it is total speculation. There are hypotheses
but they are untestable at present so can not be determined either way. So the notion that everything began with the Big Bang and before that
there was absolute nothing are incredibly presumptuous if not completely false even if they currently cannot be scientifically disproven as such

Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking in 1970 were the originators of the Big Bang theory. Penrose has since expressed reservations about
the validity of this hypothesis and in his latest book Cycles Of Time suggests alternatives for what could have happened before the Big Bang
I have the book but have not yet read it so cannot commit specifically on what they are. However it is by no means a given there was nothing
before the Big Bang. Indeed arguably the most popular hypothesis amongst physicists is that this Universe is in a constant cycle state and so
alternating between Big Bangs and Big Crunches. So when this one dies a new one will be born and this process continues ad infinitum. That
would mean that what existed before this Universe was another one. Which after it died then led to this one being born. However although this
is a very popular hypothesis it is not actually testable as such so it could be wrong. Even if it is right there is no way of actually determining that

Now the First Law Of Thermodymanics would seem to support this eternal Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis but it is actually false. And that is
because it only applies to what happens within the Universe and not to the Universe itself. Of course the Universe could be eternal despite the
First Law Of Thermodynamics. Although as I have already said what happened before the Big Bang is not known at this point in time. The best
which can be done is to form credible hypotheses based upon existing knowledge even if they are currently or maybe even eternally untestable

 

[red]

A number of fundamental category errors here. First : what is referenced as this Universe is local cosmic
expansion. It does not mean the totality of all that exists.

That's really "definitional" and so long as we are all on the same page, there is no problem.

Third : nothing and absolute nothing are not the same thing. Nothing is defined as the absence of matter and in physics is more commonly known as a vacuum. Absolute nothing as the name suggests is the absence of absolutely everything. It can exist but only at the quantum level and only too for an infinitesimal time period. That is because quantum fluctuations do not allow for it to exist more longer than is absolutely necessary. Nature it seems really does abhor a vacuum

I will have a disagreement with you on "nothing" if you do not mind. I want to see how your ideas and mine differ, and why.
I suspect I will fall down on the the physics/maths which define space, the physics of a fourth dimension to space, or possibly that a tesseract overrides "boundary" issues.
So let's look at the Big Bang as a starting point. At the moment immediately after t=0 the "volume" of the universe was at Planck scale. So if, according to general relativity, spacetime is a Lorentzian 4-manifold M whose metric satisfies Einstein's field equations, what occupied the coordinates where our solar system now exists if "space" had barely inflated?
Alternatively, what is beyond any topological boundary?

 

[surreptitious57]

If one assumes the quantum expansion from a singularity where the volume is zero and the density is the total mass of
the Universe then every where is the centre because it emanated from a point so small. The problem with this however
is the very notion of the singularity. It is a mathematical model explaining a physical phenomena which also references
infinities. Now while mathematical infinity is entirely plausible physical infinity is not because it has to exist in relation to
other phenomena. What happened before the Big Bang is not known so until it is then this problem cannot be resolved

 

[red]

If one assumes the quantum expansion from a singularity where the volume is zero and the density is the total mass of the Universe then every where is the centre because it emanated from a point so small. The problem with this however is the very notion of the singularity. It is a mathematical model explaining a physical phenomena which also references infinities. Now while mathematical infinity is entirely plausible physical infinity is not because it has to exist in relation to other phenomena. What happened before the Big Bang is not known so until it is then this problem cannot be resolved

I am not assuming anything.
I am not even presupposing natural laws.
Nor am I asking about "before". Indeed, my question specifically addressed the inflationary phase of the Big Bang.
So I am not sure you addressed what I asked.

 

[Alligoose]

What happened before the Big Bang is not known so until it is then this problem cannot be resolved

What a wonderfully delicious tautology.

 

[tuxbox]

Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking in 1970 were the originators of the Big Bang theory.

Georges Lemaitre was the originator of the Big Bang theory.