Have we found the universe that existed before the Big Bang?

Have we found the universe that existed before the Big Bang? The current cosmological consensus is that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago with the Big Bang. But a legendary physicist says he's found the first evidence of an eternal, cyclic cosmos.

The Big Bang model holds that everything that now comprises the universe was once concentrated in a single point of near-infinite density. Before this singularity exploded and the universe began, there was absolutely nothing - indeed, it's not clear whether one can even use the term "before" in reference to a pre-Big-Bang cosmos, as time itself may not have existed yet. In the current model, the universe began with the Big Bang, underwent cosmic inflation for a fraction of a second, then settled into the much more gradual expansion that is still going on, and likely will end with the universe as an infinitely expanded, featureless cosmos.

Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most renowned physicists of the last fifty years, takes issue with this view. He points out that the universe was apparently born in a very low state of entropy, meaning a very high degree of order initially existed, and this is what made the complex matter we see all around us (and are composed of) possible in the first place. His objection is that the Big Bang model can't explain why such a low entropy state existed, and he believes he has a solution - that the universe is just one of many in a cyclical chain, with each Big Bang starting up a new universe in place of the one before.

How does this help? Well, Penrose posits the end of each universe will involve a return to low entropy. This is because black holes suck in all the matter, energy, and information they encounter, which works to remove entropy from our universe. (Where that entropy might go is another question entirely.) The universe's continued expansion into eventual nothingness causes the black holes themselves to evaporate, which ultimately leaves the universe in a highly ordered state once again, ready to contract into another singularity and set off the next Big Bang.

As alternative theories go, it's not without its merits, but there's no evidence to support it...until now. He says he's found evidence for his ideas in the cosmic microwave background, the microwave radiation that permeates the universe and was thought to have formed 300,000 years after the Big Bang, providing a record of the universe at that far distant time. Penrose and his colleague Vahe Gurzadyan have discovered clear concentric circles within the data, which suggests regions of the radiation have much smaller temperature ranges than elsewhere.

So what does that mean? Penrose believes these circles are windows into the previous universe, spherical ripples left behind by the gravitational effects of colliding black holes in the previous universe. He also says these circles don't work well at all in the current inflationary model, which holds all temperature variations in the CMB should be truly random.

Here's where the fun begins. If the circles are really there and are really doing what Penrose says they're doing, then he's managed to overthrow the standard inflationary model. But there's a long way to go between where we are now and that point, assuming it ever happens.

The inflationary model has become the consensus for a good reason - it's the best explanation we've got for the universe we have now - and so cosmologists will examine any results that appear to disprove it very critically. There are also a couple key assumptions in Penrose's theory, particularly that all particles will lose their mass towards the end of the universe. Right now, we don't know whether that will actually happen - in particular, there's no proof that electrons ever decay.

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Of course, such a statement makes God subject to the ordered rules of science, and more generally to the laws of the Creation He made. It seems Penrose conveniently overlooks such a hypothetical being could not be God.

Indeed.

And, as you observed, all that multi-verse physical cosmologies accomplish is moving the goalpost backwards in time. Legerdemain does not explain why this instead of nothing at all.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

Both space and time are required for physical causation.

Time and momentum are hand-in-glove. There is no explanation for the beginning of time or inertia.

Penrose's physical cosmology is "open" - he takes space/time, inertia, physical causation and information as "given" when in fact no one can say that the physical laws and mathematics of this universe would apply to any hypothetical prior universe.

Truly, the only "closed" cosmology known to me is Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe (radical Platonism) which posits that everything in 4D is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist beyond space and time.

Scriptures speak to a similar manifesting of reality. Logos which is translated "Word" is also the root of the word "logic:"

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

And again,

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

God's Name is I AM.

I think you might enjoy Russell Humphreys book:

Starlight and Time

I found it in my local library (quick read, small paperback) in the juvenile section. Tried to see if they might re-locate it but no dice since the author wrote it specifically for a younger audience. Probably assumed older generations would be too close-minded...

Re: Russell Humphreys
He’s a scientist who has made some startling and recently confirmed predictions related to yec.

Also excerpted from wiki...

Russell Humphreys, a young Earth creationist and a nuclear physicist, wrote a book called Starlight and Time, which attempts to explain the starlight problem with his ideas of how a young earth and universe can fit in with the distant starlight problem. The first starting point for Humphreys’ model is the original cosmic material, while the second concerns the state in which that matter was in, which Humphreys believes to have been a massive black hole. Humphreys argues at great length to the effect that the Big Bang theory does not and cannot begin with a black hole (due to the assumption of the cosmological principle). The model also suggests that the universe has a distinct physical “edge”, and that the Earth lies in the middle, something Humphreys believes is supported by claims of quantized redshifts.

...rather than objecting to Penrose on the grounds that God would be subject to scientific rules, perhaps it's more appropriate to turn it around.... but what if, instead, those rules just reflect who and what God is like? The universe is accessible to mathematics and logic, because that's the nature of God and His choices.

Perhaps it is as you say, dear r9etb. However, this line of thinking seems panentheist to me:

Panentheism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
See Entry for Panentheism
First published Thu Dec 4, 2008
“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism understands God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid both isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does and identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004).....
Terminology
Because “panentheism” developed as an alternative to traditional theological positions under the influence of German Idealism, Whiteheadian process philosophy, and current scientific thought, panentheists employ a variety of terms with meanings that have a specific context.
Theological terms as understood by panentheists:
1. Theism
Classical theism, or traditional theism: the understanding that ultimate reality is a being which is distinct from the world and any other reality. This distinction involves a separation between God and the world that makes any interaction between God and the world problematic.
2. Pantheism
A type of theism that rejects any separation between God and the world by stressing the identity of God and the world ontologically. This identity is expressed in different manifestations so distinctions can be made, but the distinctions are temporary. There is often a strong sense of necessity in God's creation of the world so that God as God must express deity in creation.
3. Transcendence
Generally, God's externality to the world so that God is unlimited by any other being or reality. Hegel and then Hartshorne understand transcendence as including all that is in order to avoid any reality external to God that limits God.
4. Immanence
God's presence and activity within the world. Panentheists assert that traditional theism limits its affirmation of God's immanence by understanding immanence as the presence of the transcendent supernatural Being within the natural realm. If God's presence and activity within the world as natural is an intervention of the supernatural within the natural, God is absent from the natural except in specific cases of intervention.
5. Kenosis
Divine emptying of infinite being or withdrawal of divine being....
Possible meanings of the “in” in panentheism:
1. Locative or Having a Special Meaning
“In” refers to a location in the sense of one location that is included in a broader location. For example, something may be located in a certain part of a certain room. Such a meaning is problematic in reference to God because of the common understanding that God is not limited by spatial categories. If spatial categories do not apply to God in ordinary usage, to say something is located in God becomes problematic and is either meaningless or has a special meaning.
2. Analogical Meaning
Because of the difficulties with understanding “in” as referring to a location in relation to God, “in” is most often understood by panentheists as an analogy conveying information by means of a comparison. There are a variety of analogies that panentheists have utilized.
3. Part/Whole Analogical Meaning
Take part in something that is greater and different from any and all the parts. The world is in God by participating in God through being and action.
4. Emergence Analogical Meaning
A specific part/whole analogy that indicates that being in something is to be at least a partial source for a more complex entity.
5. Mind/Body Analogical Meaning
The mind provides structure and direction to the organization of the organism of the body. The world is God's body in the sense that the world actualizes God and manifests God while being directed by God as different from the world. Many but not all panentheists utilize the mind/body analogy to describe the God/world relation in a manner that emphasizes the immanence of God without loss of God's transcendence....

Perhaps Roger Penrose is a panentheist. But I am not. I am way too simple-minded! Plus I tend to dislike mixing theology with German Idealism.... :^) JMHO FWIW

Thank you so very much for writing, r9etb!

Perhaps it is as you say, dear r9etb. However, this line of thinking seems panentheist to me

Eh, maybe ... though I'm certainly not advocating the pantheistic aspects of "panentheism." At the same time, I don't think that God has no fixed properties at all, and I further don't believe that God's nature is totally incomprehensible to humans (who are, after all, made in His image).

My first problem with the idea that God is "over," rather than "subject" to things like math and logic, is that the distinction is made at all -- it just doesn't seem necessary, except as an all-too-human attempt to define God's boundaries.

Further, I'm suspcious of the implication that things like math and logic are somehow arbitrary: essentially invented by God for our use, but having no essential contact with the true nature of God.

I confess I do not understand your resistance to the overall idea that something like math or logic reflects some aspect of God's true nature.

Maybe if I put it in the form of an analogy..... Perhaps math and logic are to God; as whatever it is about Bach's music, that makes it so recognizeably Bach's.

Bach is obviously not his music -- but the nature of his music is characteristic of Bach. The universe is not God; but the nature of the universe is characteristic of Him.

(I acknowledge the limitations of the analogy -- not the least being that Bach was a priori constrained by defined musical structures....)

What I'm suggesting, is nothing more (or less) than that math and logic work so well as a means of describing the universe, because they're characteristic of the way God does things. He's not "over" or "subject" to them at all -- they're just characteristic of who He is.

I recognize in myself an unfortunate tendency to become over-enamored of my own ideas, but I really can't see why my suggestion should be so problematic to you....

... all that multi-verse physical cosmologies accomplish is moving the goalpost backwards in time.... There is no explanation for the beginning of time or inertia.

It seems to me the entire point of "eternal universe" cosmologies is the avoidance of the notion of a real beginning of the universe. And yet the Big Bang clearly indicates such a beginning. The strategy then is to say that this beginning is not unique, that "beginnings" (and "endings") of world systems go on cyclically, forever, in time that itself has no beginning or end. Time is simply posited as being "there" eternally, a sort of matrix in which events can happen. Time itself has no beginning (first cause) nor end.

The funny thing is science fundamentally is devoted to the elucidation of causes of natural phenomena. Why is it acceptable for science to turn a blind eye when it comes to the cause or origin of time itself?

Instead, as you say dearest sister in Christ, they keep moving "the goalpost backwards" along an infinite causal regress that doesn't "bottom out" anywhere. I.e., there is no first cause. But if there is no first cause, then how can anything come to be what it is? Penrose himself tells us that our universe had initial conditions of extremely low entropy. How could that be the result of an infinite random process?

Questions, questions....

Thank you ever so much for your insightful essay/post — and for your kind words of support.

I don't think that God has no fixed properties at all, and I further don't believe that God's nature is totally incomprehensible to humans (who are, after all, made in His image).

I think God has only one "fixed property": He cannot lie. Speculating about any others seems a tad above my pay grade.

I think the difference of views boils down to: It seems you view logic and mathematics as if they were effectively attributes of God, while I see them as creatures of God. That is, they unfolded from God's spoken Word in the Beginning — the Logos, Who was God and was with God. Since God cannot lie, we know they are "true"; and because it was God Who spoke the Word, we know they are not arbitrary, but built into the very fabric of the Creation, which itself is aimed at a final cause.... Because of them, the natural world is intelligible to the human mind, made in God's image.

I really liked your Bach analogy r9etb! (I've used something like it myself in the past, only substituting Michelangelo and his magnificent David.) And I take your point that Bach is somehow ineffably "in" his musical creations. And that he is "a priori constrained by defined musical structures." Perhaps we can say that Bach's music is the image of Bach, who in turn is the image of God....

God was never "constrained" by anything other than Truth (or so it seems to me) in the Beginning. And so He created mathematics and logic as fundamental structures of the natural world. He is not Himself the mathematics and logic — i.e., they are not merely attributes of the divine Nature — but they "reflect" Him, their truthful Source. Just as the music of J. S. Bach "reflects" his spirit.

Anyhoot, FWIW.

BTW, I'm not at all hostile to your view, r9etb. You ably describe what you see, and your analysis is engaging. It's just that I see things a little bit differently, I gather.

I'm not saying that my view is "better" than yours, only that it's not the same as yours.... And it's marvelous to discuss these issues with you!

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights with us!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.