Do you believe in God, a Source a Creator.

[Genersis]

2.

Nothing compels me to believe such a being exists.
But it's impossible to tell if one doesn't exist and also just as likely to be impossible to tell if one does exist.
I DEFINITELY don't believe in any established religion gods.

The universe is. We are.
We may find out exactly how both us and our universe came to be one day. We might even do it faster if religion stops telling us learning is bad.

[OrphanPip]

Quantum theory is wrong. As it stands it is incompatible with gravity. Classical physics breaks-down fundamentally at the big bang. A 'unified theory' might well too.

The big bang doesn't contradict quantum physics, and I think what Gil is referring to is the law of conservation of energy, which is being conflated with Einstein's Theory of Relativity which states that matter is a form of energy. If the net energy of the universe is zero, then matter could have been created out of quantum fluctuations without having actually "created energy." And currently, it does seem that the net energy of the universe is zero. We don't actually need to bring in any unifying theory to explain that.

(Not that I'm in any way an expert on advanced physics)

[Cardiganwearer]

Quantum theory is wrong. As it stands it is incompatible with gravity. Classical physics breaks-down fundamentally at the big bang. A 'unified theory' might well too.

But your computer still works, so does mine.

Quantum theory says nothing about gravity. quantum theory is incompatible with general relativity which does say things about gravity and yes they are inconsistent at a very fundamental level but for the practical things that each predicts and for the applications which rely on the properties they predict each is perfectly right.

Classical physics does break down at the big bang and for some time after, which is why we use quantum physics and special relativity to explore that period of the universe's history. It is in these circumstances that the compatibility problems with quantum theory and general relativity crop up. These problems only manifest themselves in that short period after the big bang.

This is why both are right in our present universe, in that experiments fulfill all their predictions and both our computers work.

As to a unified theory, the point of making one is to overcome the problems with what we have being incompatible at the singularity.

[Paul1]

No I do not believe in god, any more than I believe there are ghosts around me, or that some people can read minds, or that the stars can predict our lives and so on and so on. I believe only that which is based on evidence and reasoning.

People are making a simple but common error here: "When it comes to A, B and C, science is incomplete, therefore there must be something more, therefore god exists" Just because science isn't perfect doesn't therefore imply a god exists. God and science are not two mutually exclusive things.

In science, the onus is always on the person making the claim. If you claim that god exists, you've got to demonstrate evidence or reasoning to support that idea. If you claim that a theory is faulty that has been scientifically verified, you've got to cite sources to backup that counter-claim.

Finally, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Conservation of energy must be preserved, but quantum physics permits a temporary violation of this rule, the idea being that any particles which pop in to existence will also pop out of existence. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ticles-rea

IMO, the incompatibility with General Relativity and Quantum Physics, is a clue that General Relativity is not the whole story. Gravity is still very much a mystery, and is a piece of the puzzle to be solved in Quantum Physics. It doesn't mean Quantum Physics is wrong, it just means there is a part of the puzzle missing.

Also note that classical physics, as in Newtonian physics, breaks down as soon as you try to throw satellites into orbit, let alone the big bang. General Relativity, as I understand it, also breaks down at the big bang as it predicts that space-time becomes infinitely bent on itself into what is called a "singularity". As to my knowledge, no one knows what happens in this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_rel...tum_theory

Space appears to be infinite, in that the current sphere of matter appears unimpeded in expanding into the great nothingness. Time, as a dimension, behaves a lot like space, so we could also probably conclude that time is equally as infinite, and that the universe has simply always been since the big bang. Current theories propose that space and time didn't exist before the big bang as things that go on forever but as a singularity.

[sweetlad2010]

I believe that when you die for about 2 minutes your brain is still active but it’s starting to shout down like your computer might do, and in that time you are in a dream state and that’s where I believe you’ll make who or whoever you want. It’s your subconscious shouting down.
Doesn’t really answer your question but it is the way I believe in things..

[Cardiganwearer]

Space appears to be infinite, in that the current sphere of matter appears unimpeded in expanding into the great nothingness. Time, as a dimension, behaves a lot like space, so we could also probably conclude that time is equally as infinite, and that the universe has simply always been since the big bang. Current theories propose that space and time didn't exist before the big bang as things that go on forever but as a singularity.

Space does not appear to be infinite, its appearance is bounded by the distance light has travelled in the time since it's creation. Beyond that limit we can by definition have no knowledge.

The current "sphere of matter" is not expanding into a great nothingness, time and space came into existence at the big bang, there is nothing to expand into, space itself is expanding.

For anything with mass, moving at sub light velocities, time does not behave very much like space. Time and space did not exist at all before the big bang, qualifying them as things that go on forever or as a singularity has no meaning.

[Paul1]

Of course time and space existed before the big bang, just they were so warped by the huge gravitational fields, that they did not exhibit space or time like properties. Just after the big bang the dimensions would have been indistinguishable.

Space is expanding? Then perhaps what I was trying to say is that the expansion of space appears to be infinite, as I was under the impression that its expansion has no limit that is external or a constant. Is that to say space itself can be considered to be a container that energy is restricted to, or that we simply view space is defined by the furthest that energy has managed to go? What's the difference?

If we call the ??? beyond that "nothingness" (simply to give it a word), then the nothingness is capable of holding space and its contents in any direction for an infinite amount of spacetime, yes?

So it would be correct to say that space will expand infinitely so long as it continues to expand. Can we therefore attribute the same to concept to time?

[sweetlad2010]

I believe that when you die for about 2 minutes your brain is still active but it’s starting to shout down like your computer might do, and in that time you are in a dream state and that’s where I believe you’ll make who or whoever you want. It’s your subconscious shouting down.
Doesn’t really answer your question but it is the way I believe in things..

hmmmmm think you missed the point in what I said lol!!

[fredv3b]

Pip & Paul,

My point was that we don't have strong reason to believe that conservation of energy should apply to the big bang itself, therefore we don't need a creator to break/circumvent that rule. (As an aside conservation of energy could only apply if there was a period before the big bang.) Quantum theory and General Relativity work well for us in the present day because at the scales that quantum effects have measurable results there is so little mass that gravity is utterly negligible. However, in the compressed state of the universe just after the Big Bang both quantum effects and gravity are significant. The incompatibility of the Standard Model of quantum theory and General Relativity is a real practical problem at that time, not just a theoretical ugliness.

Although as far as i am aware it is accepted that a unified theory must include conservation of energy (allowing for quantum fluctuations), it is not accepted that a unified theory must not break-down at the moment of the Big Bang itself.

As an aside quantum fluctuations allow energy (and therefor mass) to be 'borrowed' for very short periods of time, not 13.7 billion years.

[Cardiganwearer]

Of course time and space existed before the big bang, just they were so warped by the huge gravitational fields, that they did not exhibit space or time like properties. Just after the big bang the dimensions would have been indistinguishable.

Space is expanding? Then perhaps what I was trying to say is that the expansion of space appears to be infinite, as I was under the impression that its expansion has no limit that is external or a constant. Is that to say space itself can be considered to be a container that energy is restricted to, or that we simply view space is defined by the furthest that energy has managed to go? What's the difference?

If we call the ??? beyond that "nothingness" (simply to give it a word), then the nothingness is capable of holding space and its contents in any direction for an infinite amount of spacetime, yes?

So it would be correct to say that space will expand infinitely so long as it continues to expand. Can we therefore attribute the same to concept to time?

I have tried to write a reply to put right your misunderstandings of physics and realised that a messageboard is not a good medium to do it. Suffice to say that every point in your post is at odds with the way physicists understand the origin and development of the universe.

It's a cop out, I appreciate, but it's impossible to explain this stuff very briefly without sounding dogmatic. Ultimately it makes no difference what you or I believe but if you enjoy an intellectual challenge there are lots of books out there that explain in 100,000 words or more what I'm not going to tackle in 50.