OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?
The idea behind the big bang theory is quite intuitive. Observe the universe, take the current version of physics and use that knowledge to figure out what the universe looked like in the past. That's all there's to it. As an engineer, I often use physics to make predictions about things that haven't been built yet, but it's also a perfectly fine tool to look back in time as it works both ways. Since the universe is expanding faster and faster now, it's easy to guess that it was smaller in the past. This is a first, crude indication that the universe might have started small. There are many interesting implications when that idea is combined with the knowledge we've gained in particle physics. For example, you can make predictions about the relative abundance of elements (light elements up to lithium-7, to be more precise, because the heavy elements were produced much later inside big stars). I don't want to go into detail here though, since that doesn't seem to be what you're interested in. Let's talk about the most glaring limitation of the big bang theory. Our current knowledge of physics doesn't suffice to figure out what happened before a certain time, when the universe was in a state that we cannot observe anywhere or reproduce ourselves in a lab. Therefore, your "problem in logic" doesn't apply to the mainstream big bang theory. You may claim now that I'm merely dodging a perfectly reasonable fundamental question about the beginning of everything (if there was a beginning). This is not a dodge though. It's the only honest way to deal with a lack of knowledge. It is perfectly fine to say, "I don't know, but I'd love to find out." That's the spirit that may eventually lead to new and better answers. Personally, I'm also fine with something like, "I don't know and I couldn't care less." What I dislike, however, are people who claim to know the answer with a high degree of certainty, but without a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up. In the meantime, don't worry and enjoy your life!
I'm not sure what you are asking. According to general relativity, space and time are aspects of matter. Neither space nor time exists independently, so one cannot ask what existed before the universe.
Time is inversely proportional to velocity. They are intertwined on a fundamental level. Since velocity is a measure of distance over time, time cannot exist without space. I may not have that entirely correct, but it's close.
the big bang theory does not speculate at all on the conditions of what came before the event. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science, if not in religion.
At the same time: Kid: "Why are elephants orange?" Parent: "I don't know" Kid: "How did the witch made her broom to fly and I can't?" Parent: "I don't know".
When asked nonsensical questions about a fantasy world or misperception or impossibility by one's child, "I don't know" is lousy parental response. If the parent truly doesn't have a clue that elephants aren't orange and witches can't fly on broomsticks then there is no hope for them and little for their kid.
Exactly. So why is "I don't know" enough when asked "why the Big Bang is not bound by the laws of physics"?
But it is bound by the laws of physics. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable answer in science when attempting to describe some observed phenomena, behavior or end result. In fact, "i don't know" is what drives scientific inquiry.
This is just you once again totally failing to have a clue about science. "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer. And, it is NOT confirmation of ANY other answer. In science, not knowing IS the answer. There are LOTS of things we don't know. This isn't even slightly strange. In fact, every discovery is quite naturally followed by NUMEROUS other questions - so many that it is standard practice for papers of science to make statements concerning directions for future investigation - the unanswered questions!! Really, you need to spend some time and learn scientific method. Every post of yours seems to have MAJOR blunders that are traceable directly to your lack of understanding of what scientific method is and how it works.
I don't know and neither does anyone else. One can hypothesize or one can imagine, but neither the dreamer or the scientist can definitively and accurately answer that question. BTW, matter is a transformation of energy, not a separate thing. You know, E=mc2 and all that. As to where the laws of physics came from, I speculate that they derived from the natural processes of the big bang as the observed necessity of "balance" within our universe might indicate.
Then why aren't the laws continuing to evolve? Also are you saying that the Big Bang or universe is self aware and decided on what is a balance?
Perhaps the laws aren't continuing to evolve because they are balanced. And I am most definitely not suggesting a self aware universe. there isn't any requirement for a decision with regard to balance. Are you at all familiar with hydrodynamics? would you infer that water is self aware in seeking its own level?
