Asking the question of whether or not [this] universe had a beginning, leaves out the question of whether or not this is the only universe in existence. Some want to believe that this universe had no beginning, and likely will have no end. In order for [this] universe to have a beginning, it would be the only one to exist, and there for would have an end.
1. The same way it is possible to have a blackhole, but more logical perhaps.1. How is it physically possible that all matter in observable universe was able to be put into a single athom?
2. What was there before big bang?
3. If there was something how it happen to exists, and if there was nothing then where did matter come from?
There was nothing at first, 0, only 0. Then, it arose from the zero, two different types of matter, matter and antimatter, zeroing out the value. And, till now, I am going along the Mainstream in theory. But my theory adds another point, in matter and antimatter, only the energy is zeroed out, not the mass, and according to the energy-mass-equivalence-equation, e=mc^2. Mass has energy, thus it breaks the first law of thermodynamics when it does not zero out. Thus, my theory says that matter had positive mass and antimatter had negative mass. Now, that zeroes it out.
True, from the point of a big bang as you said, because BB theory also states following: (copied from wikipedia)2. That question itself is invalid, as the BBT states that everything, time, space, matter - everything, started to exist from the moment of Big Bang. Time didn't exist before the big bang, at least, the theory states so.
However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state
There are other possibilities, such as that the Universe (by definition, there is only one - if you want more, call them something else) is cyclic. The so-called Big Bang could simply be a transition point between states. Just because tadpoles have a beginning and an end, it does not mean that the Universe has to be equally limited.
"we don't know" is chaotic, I think the OP wants some reasonable answers hereSo, the truthful answer to your question is "we don't".
""we don't know" is chaotic, I think the OP wants some reasonable answers here"Good one, multiverse should probably not be called a "theory" at all, but rather "human imagination" in an attempt to blur out or calm down our inability to comprehend non "limited" universe or the nature of infinity.
"we don't know" is chaotic, I think the OP wants some reasonable answers here
"The blinding light that was present in our region of space has long since traveled off to the far reaches of the universe...." What far reaches of the universe? Outside of the event horizons and singularities of blackholes, Planck level blue-white holes, us here, now, and every other real space, real time, 0-point position of our universe, any universe, every universe, there is no such thing as the far reaches of the universe. To mean, no light from that region of the observable universe has ever, or will ever, pass us by to some non-existent far reaches of the universe. Altogether, we are the dead center of infinity [and] the far reaches of the universe. That distant so-called BB horizon is not only distant but right here, right now, inside us as the collapsed horizon of Planck level blue-white holes. We, and all points of the universe broad and deep, other than the singularities of blackholes, are in -- within -- that collapsed horizon. Again, no light from that region of the universe has ever, or will ever, pass us by."Astronomers have detected, throughout the universe, two chemical elements that could only have been created during the Big Bang: hydrogen and helium. Furthermore, these elements are observed in just the proportions (roughly 75% hydrogen, 25% helium) predicted to have been produced during the Big Bang. This prediction is based on our well-established understanding of nuclear reactions - independent of Einstein's theory of gravity.
Second, we can actually detect the light leftover from the era of the Big Bang. The blinding light that was present in our region of space has long since traveled off to the far reaches of the universe. But light from distant parts of the universe is just now arriving here at Earth, billions of years after the Big Bang. This light is observed to have all the characteristics expected from the Big Bang scenario and from our understanding of heat and light."
Got this answer from https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm
there is no such thing as the far reaches of the universe. To mean, no light from that region of the observable universe has ever, or will ever, pass us by to some non-existent far reaches of the universe. Altogether, we are the dead center of infinity [and] the far reaches of the universe.
If you're referring to those parts of the space which expand faster than light then you're correct, however it applies only from the point in time when expansion reached FTL speed but not before.Again, no light from that region of the universe has ever, or will ever, pass us by.
Nor has it ever been "late" in reaching us (that region is frozen in time, a fixed horizon such as any frame of time at the speed of light)
I think because the answer is blowing in the wind.I don't see any substantive replies to my posts #13 and #14.
I really hope you're not referring to my comments because I don't consider them as answers.I think because the answer is blowing in the wind.
No offense but, this sounds like "accept it or not, that's how it is now and you better don't challenge that"Proving the BB was real isn't to difficult, proving how it got energy to be a BB that one is blowing in the wind
If I've read you right then you seem wrong on a few counts of what I said (What I've said in several threads and posts).You seem to be thinking about space in the sense of "presentism" which states that neither the past nor future time exists, instead the time is here and now, what happens now is *now* and it does not "travel" from the future passing us and then going into the past.
Other 2 theories are "eternalism" and "growing block universe"
All 3 have their own supporters...
The "eternalism" may sound like some religious-only concept of time (in fact it is religious), BUT it is AFAIK currently used theory in science as well (however by scientists it is called "block universe"), eternalism or block universe is our reality of time, and it makes a lot of sense for the problem that you're trying to wrongly classify as dead point within infinite time or present-only.
If you're referring to those parts of the space which expand faster than light then you're correct, however it applies only from the point in time when expansion reached FTL speed but not before.
Also we don't know whether space will stop expanding at some point so saying that light will never reach isn't certain.
In any case that doesn't mean the time is fixed or frozen on some imaginary infinite or expansive line, such that it's present-only.
I did not say speed faster than light exists.First off, I've made clear I see no faster than light existing.