Source of physical laws?

[Rye]

The universe has always existed, it's just that "always" doesn't extend beyond time itself, which doesn't extend beyond the Big Bang.

[Surlethe]

As I understand it, the Big Bang was the kickoff, and for all intents and purposes, before it was 'nothing'. How does that work?

Time begins with the Big Bang. How do you go "before" it?

[Kuroneko]

Indeed. If 'always' means 'at all times' and the universe has time as one of its parts, then it is a plain logical deduction that the universe has always existed. This is true regardless of whether time is infinite in the past direction or approaches a singularity.

Interestingly, not every Big Bang model has to have a singularity. For example, if the Hubble law is exact, then the universal scale factor a is exponential in time (H = a'/a), the universe exists even as cosmological time t→-inf, and there is no singularity. Of course, this is empirically known not to be the case, and has some unsatisfactory theoretical consequences besides. Classically, a singularity is unavoidable, although what happens quantum-mechanically is unclear.

[CmdrWilkens]

Now, a question. The laws are part of the universe, however, as we know, the universe has not always existed. As I understand it, the Big Bang was the kickoff, and for all intents and purposes, before it was 'nothing'. How does that work?

The problem is that the Big bang is not the kickoff. Right now either the classic or inflationary versions of the Big Bang both have a sort of hazy period BEFORE the bang happened. That is because, especially inflationary, models require something already there which is an enourmous amount of energy (in fact it would be literally the entire energy conent of the universe) compressed into a space that is almost immeasureably tiny (a point for classic and a two-brane for superstring). So simply put the Big Bang has never, and does not, seek to have claim on why there is energy (and thus matter) to begin with but rather describes HOW that energy created all of space and time that we currently see. Without getting to deep into it there is no reason to not assume that the mass/ernergy which started the bang has always been there.

[Edi]

Hereis a fairly good attempt at explaining the Big Bang and a lot of the cosmology around it in layman terms. That thread is fairly long, but the guy who started it knows his shit forwards and backwards and it's worth reading to everyone here. The stuff in there also gives a good picture of it, not the kind of dumbed down bullshit the OP article in this thread does.

[Terralthra]

Hereis a fairly good attempt at explaining the Big Bang and a lot of the cosmology around it in layman terms. That thread is fairly long, but the guy who started it knows his shit forwards and backwards and it's worth reading to everyone here. The stuff in there also gives a good picture of it, not the kind of dumbed down bullshit the OP article in this thread does.

Is the hairball in that thread the same one that came here a week or two ago and bragged about his degree(s) in physics, math, and philosophy? If so, . That hairball said such exchanges as:

Brad_Ad, could you elaborate on why the Big Bang occurred in the first place? What, in our condensed spacetime, were the factors that led it to inflate?

This is a tricky question! Events that triggered the Big Bang are not certain.

Scientists and philosophers have been pondering over that question for millenia.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Even after many centuries noone has come up with a better explanation than that.

That would depend on your definition of better. Waving one's hand and chocking it up to supernatural is what people have done for millenia. That we are even able to know what tools we need to answer this question without the supernatural is progress.

Nobody in this thread has said that God is "supernatural".

[OmegaGuy]

Nobody in this thread has said that God is "supernatural".

So God is subordinate to the laws of physics? I'm no expert, but I'd think that would have undesirable theological consequences.

[Terralthra]

Nobody in this thread has said that God is "supernatural".

So God is subordinate to the laws of physics? I'm no expert, but I'd think that would have undesirable theological consequences.

Yeah, there goes the Christian Unitary Executive Branch...

[Darth Wong]

Hereis a fairly good attempt at explaining the Big Bang and a lot of the cosmology around it in layman terms. That thread is fairly long, but the guy who started it knows his shit forwards and backwards and it's worth reading to everyone here. The stuff in there also gives a good picture of it, not the kind of dumbed down bullshit the OP article in this thread does.

Is the hairball in that thread the same one that came here a week or two ago and bragged about his degree(s) in physics, math, and philosophy? If so, . That hairball said such exchanges as:

Brad_Ad, could you elaborate on why the Big Bang occurred in the first place? What, in our condensed spacetime, were the factors that led it to inflate?

This is a tricky question! Events that triggered the Big Bang are not certain.

Scientists and philosophers have been pondering over that question for millenia.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Even after many centuries noone has come up with a better explanation than that.

That would depend on your definition of better. Waving one's hand and chocking it up to supernatural is what people have done for millenia. That we are even able to know what tools we need to answer this question without the supernatural is progress.

Nobody in this thread has said that God is "supernatural".

That is goddamned hilarious.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same hairball. After all, did you notice how tjhairball claimed my creationtheory.org site was full of fallacies too, and that he could see them all with his philosophy degree, although he couldn't be bothered to describe any of them?

A lot of people who are desperate to find excuses for their preconceived notions like to look for opportunities for bullshit in the Big Bang. They think they're so much more enlightened than the bog-standard fundie because they piss on a smaller portion of science, which is less relevant to everyday activities.

[Edi]

No, that's not the same hairball, though both hairballs are trolls. Hairballxavier is a guy in his 40s with a family and works in the construction industry pouring concrete and doing other related stuff. He's been specific enough about that and other things in his past that they are not the same person.