Da big bang

[PBI]

cmacq, a few questions and comments.

Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles

Not quite, since light still does certainly behave as a wave in the right circumstances. The major consequence of Compton's discovery was the idea of wave-particle duality, an idea which is anathema to classical theories but no problem in quantum mechanics.

Herein, the physical mechanics of the CE represent an interaction between electrons and high energy photons that result in the transference of energy, realized as the retraction of the electrons and a directional change of the photons that remain charged, so that the overall momentum is conserved.

Here's where my main problem lies; if the photon is being repeatedly Compton scattered by electrons throughout its journey, and each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction, how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction? At present the only significant limit on the clarity with which astronomical objects can be resolved is the optics of the telescope itself; if the light from such sources is being repeatedly scattered off the intervening medium enough to induce a significant redshift, at best they would appear as a fuzzy blob, at worst we would not be able to see them at all because it would be similar to trying to do astronomy through thick fog.

Our sun’s red shift is obviously not due to the Doppler Effect, as it’s not moving away from us.

Not strictly true according to General Relativity. According to this theory, the red shift is caused by the sun's gravitational well; since photons from the sun must climb out of the well to reach us, their energy is reduced by an amount equal to the depth of the potential well. Since a fundamental principle of GR is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial acceleration, this redshift really is the same as if the sun were moving away from us.

So since you are suggesting that this redshift is in fact caused by the Compton effect, are you also rejecting General Relativity in addition to the BBT? That's a big assertion and probably one worthy of a thread of its very own. While the BBT certainly does rely on General Relativity (or in some cases proposed extensions of it) the reverse is not true.

Thus, because of the variables the CE convincingly removes the DE as an explanation of the observed red shift phenomenon, as a proof of the BBT.

I suspect we may have to agree to differ on that. I'm afraid it just doesn't seem likely to me that the Compton effect could be causing a significant shift in energy without also introducing a significant random deflection in direction which is simply not observed.

I await your reply with interest.

[cmacq]

A fair mix of comment and question, to frame a discussion, however therein are a few presumptions. For which I shall attempt to provide adequate commentary and answers.

Poor Bloody Infantry Comment 1) Not quite, since light still does certainly behave as a wave in the right circumstances. The major consequence of Compton's discovery was the idea of wave-particle duality, an idea which is anathema to classical theories but no problem in quantum mechanics.

Rebuttal 1) I think the key word in my initial statement was ‘Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles,' as I did not use ‘is.’ Regardless, indeed the duality of light is an important element to understanding why the galactic redshift is not the result of the Doppler Effect. Again, my feeble attempts to stay on tract or focused, and not to muddy the water, for those that follow. Of course the duality line would lead us inexorably to resonance, and although this is where we’re headed, I’m not prepared to go there yet.

Poor Bloody Infantry Comment 2) Here's where my main problem lies; if the photon is being repeatedly Compton scattered by electrons throughout its journey, and each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction,

Rebuttal 2) I think the key words in your statement was, ‘each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction.’ I don’t think I said that the changes in direction were scattered or random, rather that they were specific. As it pertains to a colour shift, of course we talking about either a lengthening of the wave or a change in resonance. The usage is Compton Scattering or Compton Effect, not Comption scattered as technically, the effect is not defined by random scattering.

Poor Bloody Infantry Question 1) how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction?

Answer 1) I don’t believe the evidence actually indicates that galactic light approaches our system from the one direction. If so that would mean that galactic structures within one or more visual vectors would demonstrate the redshift, while in one or more vectors the blueshift would be evident. The way I understand the evidence, is that all distant galactic structure are marked by the redshift, and all near structures are marked by the blueshift, regardless of the visual vector. For example, we have the Triangulum and Andromeda Galaxies and many other blueshifters. Please see the vectored view of the Local Group (LG) provided below, as you will note that distance and not visual vectoring is the qualifying factor for redshift vs blueshift. Also note this view is relatively flat, so those features that appear near the center bottom of the graphic, are referenced with doted lines to plot there location, and are not below the horizon of the LG.



Remember everything within the graphic is in motion and this is relative, not scattered nor random. Also the intergalactic space between these larger structures, are much smaller features, isolates, debris, and dust; as well as an extremely dispersed element state with about one hydrogen atom per 1 m3.



Sorry, I've got to run, but shall return to the answers soon.


CmacQ

[PBI]

Rebuttal 2) I think the key words in your statement was, ‘each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction.’ I don’t think I said that the changes in direction were scattered or random, rather that they were specific. As it pertains to a colour shift, of course we talking about either a lengthening of the wave or a change in resonance. The usage is Compton Scattering or Compton Effect, not Comption scattered as technically, the effect is not defined by random scattering.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but by Compton scattering, I understand you to refer to the process whereby an electron absorbs a photon, and then re-emits a photon of a longer wavelength. If this is the mechanism by which the redshift is introduced then since it is a quantum mechanical process the direction in which the photon is re-emitted is inherently random.

A second problem arises if we take a look at the Compton scattering equation:

(initial wavelength) - (final wavelength) = (constant) * (1-cos(D))

Where D is the angle by which the photon is deflected from its original direction of motion. Thus, while a few photons will continue on their original heading and not be deflected, if we set the angle D to be zero for such a case it is clear that in this case that the initial and final wavelengths will be identical, thus they will not be redshifted.

So this is the problem I have with the idea of Compton scattering causing galactic redshift. Firstly, the deflection of the light in addition to the lengthening of its wavelength should mean that at best galaxies should appear as fuzzy blobs rather than clearly defined objects, and improving the telescope resolution will not reveal any further detail. At worst, the scattering of photons will be so severe that distant objects will not be visible at all since the scattering will be so severe that the interstellar medium would be effectively opaque.

Secondly, any light which travels directly to us in a straight line will not be redshifted at all no matter how many electrons it scatters off. Thus, we have two clear predictions from a theory of redshift caused by Compton scattering: Smearing of images of galaxies which will not be improved by improving the telescope, and light from the center of the image should not be redshifted at all. Neither of these is observed, which to me seems to be a severe flaw in such a theory.

Question 1) how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction?

Answer 1) I don’t believe the evidence actually indicates that galactic light approaches our system from the one direction. If so that would mean that galactic structures within one or more visual vectors would demonstrate the redshift, while in one or more vectors the blueshift would be evident. The way I understand the evidence, is that all distant galactic structure are marked by the redshift, and all near structures are marked by the blueshift, regardless of the visual vector. For example, we have the Triangulum and Andromeda Galaxies and many other blueshifters. Please see the vectored view of the Local Group (LG) provided below, as you will note that distance and not visual vectoring is the qualifying factor for redshift vs blueshift. Also note this view is relatively flat, so those features that appear near the center bottom of the graphic, are referenced with doted lines to plot there location, and are not below the horizon of the LG.

Actually, I was simply referring to the light from a single galaxy all arriving from the same direction rather than coming from many directions in space which is what I would expect if the light is being repeatedly scattered. As I mentioned above, the image should be smeared out, rather like a light seen through thick fog.

[cmacq]

Poor Bloody Infantry


I’m a bit tied up right now, but give me a few days to respond to your question.



CmacQ

[PBI]

Please take all the time you need.

Speaking of which, I should probably get back to work too, since interesting as this discussion is, it's not going to get my thesis written.

[cmacq]

The Master's...

by the way, your thesis is?

[cmacq]

Part I
Directly, the answer to your question was from a pervious post, found in the following sentence, however I’ll admit it was rather laconic and vague.

‘Remember everything within the graphic is in motion and this is relative, not scattered nor random.’

As a reference, this may sound a bit obtuse, but please bear with me, as this provides the rationale for my answer. Previously I posted that the way the Copernican Principle has recently been employed, i.e. the earth is as good as any other place to observe the universe, is utter rubbish. I maintain that the earth is actually a horrific place (but not the worst) to view the universe, as there are available far better points from which to surveil.

The reasons are as follow. First, in theory our planet lays within the Terran star system, wherein we have a single G2 class base star, several planets; several dwarf planets, numerous moons, billions of smaller bodies, debris, dust, solar winds, the Interplanetary Medium, and the Oort Cloud. All of these exist within a horizontal plane, which is tilted at a particular angle in relation to our galaxy, and is in relative motion around the base star, our sun. Although collectively, these motions are not uniform, yet neither are they random, as there is an interdependence, however dominated by the base star.




Next our Terran star system is in motion within a Local Interstellar Cloud, known as the Local Fluff. This is an outflow from the Sco-Cen, and is roughly 30 light years across. This gas cloud has a temperature of 6000° C, which is about the same surface temperature of the Sun. Overall, it’s very dispersed, with a density of 0.26 atoms per cm3. Interestingly the Local Fluff is in motion in relation to the Sco-Cen. Again this motion is not random.



Our system along with the Local Fluff and other fellow travelers are in motion within the Local Bubble. This is a cavity in the interstellar medium, which I’ll get to next. It’s about 300 light years from one side to another and has a neutral hydrogen density of approximately 0.05 atoms per cm3. This diffused gas is hot and somehow emits X-rays. This in part is likely due to the Local Bubble being the remains of a supernovae that exploded between two to four million years ago.



Next our system, the Local Fluff, and the Local Bubble are in motion within the interstellar medium which is in turn associated with the Orion Arm. The interstellar medium (ISM) is another gaseous formation that surrounds the stars that compose the greater structure of our Milky Way Galaxy. Its density is about 0.5 atoms per cm3. Overall the ISM within the Orion Arm (OA) is very big and as one of several minor arms, the OA is in motion between the Sagittarius and the Perseus arms, two of the four major arms of the our galaxy. All these are in relative motion, which is dominated by the center of our galaxy. Although so complex they're beyond our current understanding, none of these motions can be classified as random.



Beyond this, along the plane of the intergalactic horizon is intergalactic space which, as provided above, has a theoretical average density of around one hydrogen atom per 1 m3. This expanse is in motion as is the Local Group, seen in the graphic above, as are the seemingly numberless other groups of galaxies found further afield. Again, all these are in motion and these motions are all relative.

The point and the answer to question to follow.



CmacQ

[PBI]

Since you ask, I am studying for a PhD in Theoretical Physics. The research we do is all about finding new techniques for performing scattering calculations to provide predictions for experiments such as those at the LHC (although that makes my work sound altogether more grand than it actually is); hence why I know a thing or two about Quantum Mechanics and Compton scattering (though of course, I certainly wouldn't claim to know everything there is to know about either of those topics).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To be precise, what we do is to work on alternative methods for finding scattering amplitudes in Quantum Field Theories, since the Feynman diagram techniques currently used become wildly inefficient for interactions involving large numbers of particles. To crank the jargon up a notch, we specifically use Unitarity-based methods which allow complicated loop integrals to be reduced to products of tree amplitudes multiplied by a known integral basis.

The other interesting strand of our research revolves around the study of N=8 Supersymmetric Quantum Gravity. As you may know, most quantum theories of gravity suffer problems with infinite terms appearing in calculations which are impossible to cancel. One possible way around this is to treat particles as extended objects, known as String Theory; however, this approach is fraught with its own set of problems (as well as being an utter nightmare to calculate anything in). The hope of N=8 SUGRA is that due to large cancellations in such a heavily supersymmetric theory the infinite terms will not appear, allowing for the possibility of a Quantum theory of gravity without introducing all the problems of String Theory.

So far, no divergent terms have been found in any of the N=8 amplitudes calculated. In fact, the cancellation between terms appears to be a good deal stronger than expected from the degree of Supersymmetry. This is interesting because this additional cancellation is quite distinct from the Supersymmetric contribution, and the mechanism behind it is AFAIK pretty much a mystery. Obviously, as more N=8 amplitudes are explicitly calculated, the picture will become clearer, which is where we come in with our unitarity methods.

The problem, of course, is that even if N=8 SUGRA turns out to be finite in four dimensions, nature is simply not N=8 supersymmetric. Therefore, the best we can ever hope for with N=8 is that it could act as a proof-of-concept that a sensible quantum field theory of gravity can exist (albeit not in this universe), and also hopefully as a context in which to study this mysterious new cancellation. The longer term picture depends largely on whether extensions of the theory can be found which look anything like the real universe; my supervisor once described it something along these lines:
The question is whether N=8 SUGRA will turn out to be Rockall, an isolated, barren patch of rationality in a vast sea of divergence; or whether it will be Tahiti, a single island in a vast chain of rich and diverse islands (not to mention a more appealing holiday destination than Rockall).

Of course, if you managed to follow any of what I just wrote, you're doing better than I am!

[cmacq]

sorry,

but I'm currently consumed by a very important project. I shall return.

CmacQ

[PBI]

Understood, no hurry.

Good luck with your project.

[Thermal]

never big bang!, magical gnomes made the world and it will not be said otherwise!

[cmacq]

Poor Bloody Infantry; first question.

As you’re more familiar with this subject than I, was the review offered above, of the known and relevant features that comprise the universe, inclusive? Or, did I omit any important structures that would impact incoming light?

CmacQ

[PBI]

As far as I'm aware it's inclusive, but it's not my specialism. I find astronomy interesting, certainly, and I took a few modules in it in my undergraduate degree, but I am very definitely a physicist and not an astronomer. I mostly know about scattering processes and quantum mechanics, with a healthy dollop of relativity thrown in for good measure.

So I certainly wouldn't claim to be more knowledgeable than you on astronomy, and as far as I'm aware your summary of the known features making up our surroundings in space is a pretty good one, but the problem is it does not address my earlier points, which pertain to the nature of Compton scattering on a more fundamental level.

It doesn't especially matter what particular structures or media are responsible for the Compton scattering, the point is that I simply cannot see how sufficient Compton scattering could occur to introduce a signficant redshift without also introducing a random (in the true, quantum mechanical sense of the word) deflection of the direction of the light which would make it impossible to observe clearly defined structures such as galaxies.

[cmacq]

It doesn't especially matter what particular structures or media are responsible for the Compton scattering, the point is that I simply cannot see how sufficient Compton scattering could occur to introduce a signficant redshift without also introducing a random (in the true, quantum mechanical sense of the word) deflection of the direction of the light which would make it impossible to observe clearly defined structures such as galaxies.

Right, more to your field.

Poor Bloody Infantry; second question

When we say Compton scattering, given light's nature, do we mean an actual particle deflection, the increase of wavelengths, or due to duality, an alteration in the resonance of quantum fields (with an added decrease in velocity)? Just addressing the attributes of the observation and although I know its important, I’m purposely leaving out the fact that the light has a given velocity.


CmacQ

[Papewaio]

IMDHO from what I can vaguely recollect.

Compton scattering is the change in energy of the photon due to interaction with matter.

Now as it is a photon it only travels at the speed of light. It doesn't slow down. Therefore if it loses energy it will have to change its wavelength/frequency. So as it loses energy it redshifts.

With Compton scattering the change in energy is in proportion to the change in direction. So any Compton scattering red shift will cause a change in its direction. This scattering is not uniform like that of light refraction, so unlike a rainbow if you scatter all the photons from an object it will be blurred at best. Compton shifted light will both be randomly scattered (blurry) and as such have different red shifts (you'd get a redshifted hump for the spectroscopic lines rather then a relativistic redshifted bright line)

Also at the visible wavelengths instead of Compton scattering the photons could just as likely be causing the photoelectric effect with the matter they are interacting with. So instead of even being randomly scattered and red shifted, the light problem will just ionise the local matter and stop there.

So if any great degree of Compton scattering was going to occur it would:
a) Leave blurry pictures
b) Have a redshift 'hump' of the spectroscopic lines
c) Leave little in the visible light spectrum to see because of the photoelectric effect.

In short you would see the stars in the infra-red spectrum if at all, and they would be blurry blobs.

[cmacq]

Sorry,

I may be completely wrong, and my argument may by now be clear, but I'm headed somewhere with my setup and questions.

The point is in a nutshell, that in the controlled environment of the lab, the Compton Effect is observed when the photon is in motion, while the target matter it impacts is relatively static and thus any motion on its part, is indeed random. Thus, the directional deflection of the photon is also random, and we have scattering. In contrast, in the ultimately larger context, the target matter belongs to specific features and/or structures, such as those outlined above. This matter is indeed not static, nor is its motion radom, as it has a relatively common nonrandom velocity and directional motion within each of the given features and/or structures. Thus, as incoming photons pass through these specific features and/or structures and strike matter, some visual distortion may occur, yet directional defection is relatively uniform, in much the same manner, as when light passes through earth’s atmosphere? Now if space were an entirely empty void, this certainly would not be the case, and the observation would indeed be the result of the Doppler Effect, however space is not empty?


CmacQ

[Papewaio]

Photons are always moving at the speed of light. The speed of matter unless also moving close to the speed of light would not matter (no pun intended). I'm not sure if matter moving at relativistic speeds has an impact on the Compton equations (again no pun intended).

Also as noted above because the deflection would not be uniform this would mean that he spectra would be blurred. Rather then just shifted to the red. The lines would be fatter and dimmer because of Compton scattering. Refraction in the atmosphere has a uniform angle change. Also some of the spectra would be absorbed depending on the matter encountered (this is how the Greenhouse effect works).

Also matter at all times is moving and random in motion unless it has a temperature of 0 Kelvin. This is lower then the background radiation of the observed Universe (something like 3 Kelvin). As long as matter has a temperature above 0 kelvin then matter moves, that is what heat is.

[cmacq]

Photons are always moving at the speed of light. The speed of matter unless also moving close to the speed of light would not matter (no pun intended). I'm not sure if matter moving at relativistic speeds has an impact on the Compton equations (again no pun intended).

Indeed, to tell the truth, neither do I. However, that is the question. Several lines of evidence might suggest that it does.



CmacQ

[Viking]

Now as it is a photon it only travels at the speed of light. It doesn't slow down. Therefore if it loses energy it will have to change its wavelength/frequency. So as it loses energy it redshifts.

According to a wiki article, the speed of light in water is 0.75 c. I'm not sure about the validity of that velocity, but the fact that the speed of light depends on the medium is the cause of Cherenkov radiation. Photons do not have any mass; such that the velocity would not really matter for the energy?



Since space is not a perfect vacuum, one would assume that even in the so called vacuum of space; light does not travel at a constant speed?

Of course, none of this appear to have any relevance to the debate at hand (a debate which is a bit beyond me).

[Old Geezer]

Big Bang Theories are philosophical/religious theories and have no basis in demonstrable scientific facts, but rather contradict science and logic to such an extent as to be patently silly.

[Strike For The South]

Big Bang Theories are philosophical/religious theories and have no basis in demonstrable scientific facts, but rather contradict science and logic to such an extent as to be patently silly.

Have you heard of the backroom? We like people like you.

[Ibrahim]

Big Bang Theories are philosophical/religious theories and have no basis in demonstrable scientific facts, but rather contradict science and logic to such an extent as to be patently silly.

I agree with strike for the south on this one. I also add this: can you care to explain from where you get the idea of yours from?

[Kadagar_AV]

Why cant we leave faith out of the science forum?

It is 2009, not 1909 or 1809.

If there is a creator I am sure science will find him. Till then can we leave religious superstition out of this forum? Again: Out of this SCIENCE forum.

[Moros]

Why cant we leave faith out of the science forum?

It is 2009, not 1909 or 1809.

If there is a creator I am sure science will find him. Till then can we leave religious superstition out of this forum? Again: Out of this SCIENCE forum.

Though you could call me an atheist, personally I don't think science and religion can't go hand in hand. They just have to be seperated and not intermixed when practicing science. When not practicing science you can make your own image based on a combination of both, but while practising it you should indeed not let (a) god or the idea of (a) god influence you. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god or gods. Science isn't about excluding ideas, but about proving or acknowleding theories if they are scientificly proven or at least supported and probable, based on the scientific method, Ockham, empiric evidence,... You can believe in god, but you can't say god exist in science unless using scientific methods first for proving or supporting such a theory first. And if you can't do the latter it's merely the scienitific way of not involving suspicions that yet have scientific base. The thruth about the matter not being questioned.

[Ibrahim]

Though you could call me an atheist, personally I don't think science and religion can't go hand in hand. They just have to be seperated and not intermixed when practicing science. When not practicing science you can make your own image based on a combination of both, but while practising it you should indeed not let (a) god or the idea of (a) god influence you. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god or gods. Science isn't about excluding ideas, but about proving or acknowleding theories if they are scientificly proven or at least supported and probable, based on the scientific method, Ockham, empiric evidence,... You can believe in god, but you can't say god exist in science unless using scientific methods first for proving or supporting such a theory first. And if you can't do the latter it's merely the scienitific way of not involving suspicions that yet have scientific base. The thruth about the matter not being questioned.

true I guess..

[gaelic cowboy]

I have a serious problem with the big bang but unfortunately no better solution has come along yet so I stick with it till we prove otherwise.

My main problem is before it is nothing after there is something this sounds completely daft in my view.

I have no problem with how science proves the creation of planets and stars from the billionth of a second right after the fact. However the exact instant of creation is my sticking point it doesnt make sense.

I like the analogy of the two dimensional people who exist on a sheet of paper unable to realise they live on a three dimensional object. They will never fully comprehend the higher level of dimensions but they may theorise about them but will fail at explanation of what they would be like.

We are those people we will never explain the creative moment of our universe we can be 99.9% sure God did not do it but never 100%.

Maybe we should never bother to try explain it or maybe we should just try knowing we will only reveal more ignorance of the actual moment.

[Ibrahim]

I have a serious problem with the big bang but unfortunately no better solution has come along yet so I stick with it till we prove otherwise.

My main problem is before it is nothing after there is something this sounds completely daft in my view.

WHAT??!

no body to my knowlege who is an authority on the subject actually says that; the big bang merely says that all the universe, with time and space, was concentrated into a "singularity", which expanded, making an explosion of space-time*. where the singulariy came from is not explained, nor is it meant to be by the theory (per se); for all we know, we are being s***ed out of another old universe. but no scientific theory says that something was of nothing-that is magic (i.e religion as well). and this is from a muslim of all people.

*thus it is not an "explosion" as we know it. it wasn't even an explosion per se.

[gaelic cowboy]

WHAT??!

no body to my knowlege who is an authority on the subject actually says that; the big bang merely says that all the universe, with time and space, was concentrated into a "singularity", which expanded, making an explosion of space-time*. where the singulariy came from is not explained, nor is it meant to be by the theory (per se); for all we know, we are being s***ed out of another old universe. but no scientific theory says that something was of nothing-that is magic (i.e religion as well). and this is from a muslim of all people.

*thus it is not an "explosion" as we know it. it wasn't even an explosion per se.

No might say it but the elephant is there all the same in the dark room one minute there's nothing then there is something as they say that cant happen cos thats magic.

I mean where did this singularity come from how did it manage to exist if nothing existed before because surely it had no place to exist IN

If it came form another universe then surely it is being made to exist outside its place of existence HOW can that happen

I also said I had no problem with the theory milliseconds after it happened I just cannot accept the actual creative moment as you pointed it feels almost religious or magical.

If were from another Universe your shifting the goals but not stadium you still need a start point. I will as it were never accept the actual creative moment of our universe I will however accept how things like planets and stars etc etc came into being directly after it.

[Ibrahim]

No might say it but the elephant is there all the same in the dark room one minute there's nothing then there is something as they say that cant happen cos thats magic.

one minute there's nothing, the next this singularity...who said that was what happened? as I said, it is both irrelevent to the idea of the big bang (expanding universe), and is an unknown. for all we know the singularity was always there, or that it was from an older parallel universe-we can't possibly know, with the scientific tools currently available.

I mean where did this singularity come from how did it manage to exist if nothing existed before because surely it had no place to exist IN

again, who says? yes, the universe expanded into the nothing, but it doesn't mean that it came from nothing, we don't know, and we can't say Godidit.

If it came form another universe then surely it is being made to exist outside its place of existence HOW can that happen?

don't ask me, I'm not the cosmologist who came up with that idea. and as I said, its an unknown. the idea of a universe that seeded this one is one idea, but it is without evidence and untestable with what we now have.

I also said I had no problem with the theory milliseconds after it happened I just cannot accept the actual creative moment as you pointed it feels almost religious or magical.

If were from another Universe your shifting the goals but not stadium you still need a start point. I will as it were never accept the actual creative moment of our universe I will however accept how things like planets and stars etc etc came into being directly after it.

again, who said it was a creative moment? we don't know what happened before the expansion of this singularity, and we can't even really test for it with what we have, let alone answer that question.

and who said I was shifting the goal posts? I said that the universe might have come out of another. I never indicated whether I agree or not. and as I meantioned for the half dozenth time, its an unknown.

my point is simple: we can't say that the universe (the "singularity") was "created" as what happened before the big bang is an Unknown. and as long as its an unknown, we cannot assume that it even had a "beginning" or a moment of creation.