Before the Big Bang? (Origins)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 23:31 (3530 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You have telescoped a number of ideas here, and I feel they need to be separated. The more you talk of “pure energy”, the more nebulous the concept becomes. How “pure” can it be if it is able to give rise to all these particles? I can understand the argument that matter came from energy, so perhaps we need a definition of “pure”. Otherwise, it sounds exactly the same as Stenger and Krauss arguing that matter came from “nothing”.-In the aftermath of the bb there was plasma, and the particles fell out later (300,000 years)
> 
> dhw: Why does the first cause logically have to be pure energy? Why can't the first cause have been energy with particles? “In some form, which is really unknown to us” suggests that you yourself cannot conceive of “pure energy”, so why do you need to? -Think of the plasma.
> 
> dhw: You and I both accept cause and effect, but once again you insist on “timeless” energy being first cause, even though cause and effect depend on time. Following Ockham, why not opt for the simplest scenario: the first cause as energy eternally transmuting itself into matter? Since the only energy/matter we know of is that of our own universe, why assume that the eternal past has been any different? In other words, why assume that energy in the past has been devoid of particles, which is the only definition of “pure” energy that I can think of? You cannot get something new from a “pure” anything!-Again, the bb evolution of the universe went through a plasma energy phase. I'm stuck with that. Current theory, is that the bb was cold and heat and plasma followed. And all I can follow is the theory, and admit what was before the bb is unknown but following cause and effect it was energy, because energy is what appeared first.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum