Where is the scientific PROOF that there aren't multiple Universes and that time didn't exist before BIG BANG?

Answer 1

I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking everybody to simply assume that there must be multiple universes unless or until there is proof to the contrary…? I’m sure you didn’t mean to sound that way, but LISTEN to yourself! You sound like one of those people who believe in science the way some people believe in religion, blindly and mindlessly!

Or, did you mean scientific proof that there ARE multiple universes…?

Either way, to ask others to assume that a certain viewpoint is correct UNTIL there is proof to the contrary is asking for an awful lot! What if the proof doesn’t come in their lifetime? What does belief concerning multiple universes give us that is so valuable that we would be willing to believe in them for the rest of our lives, just in case they prove to be real?

Now, I can understand some scientists (not all of them) saying that everything started from inert matter. They don’t seem to realize that if this was true, they themselves would be the same kind of matter. In other words, they are saying that it doesn’t really make any difference whether they are alive or not, though they may not realize that logically follows thinking we came from inert matter

In the same way, I can understand some scientists (not all of them) saying that everything started from mindless energy. They don’t seem to realize that if this was true, they themselves would be mindless, and this is a logical consequence of being made from something that was mindless.

(If they are going to argue that mind is a minor, temporary and inconsequential thing, why should anybody—including themselves—pay any attention to their reasoning?)

Some people have become very angry at me for raising these objections to their reasoning. They refuse to admit the logic and validity of the objections. They seem to be wanting to say, “Believe it because I’m so sincere, not because the reasons make any sense! How dare you question it?”

As far as multiple universes go, it is just like the stubborn old woman who told an astronomer that they Earth wasn’t floating in space, but that it rested on the back of a gigantic turtle. When he asked what held up the turtle, she said, “It’s no use! It’s turtles, all the way down!”

So when it starts to seem as though the universe that we observe around us is too finely tuned for the existence of human life to be a coincidence, some scientists will postulate anything, rather than examine that possibility. “Well,” they say, “This is just one of many different universes, and we just happen to be in the one that is suitable for life.”

Sure sounds like “Turtles all the way down,” to me…!

But when confronted with this, scientists prove themselves to be only human after all. They are capable of the EXACT same kind of logical fallacies, irrational disconnects, self-dishonesty and inner inconsistencies that they had previously claimed to be the sole property of people they scoffed at as old fashioned, uneducated, prejudiced and religious.

Can’t everybody see that science can’t touch upon the questions of whether there is any real qualitative difference between living things and nonliving things, or between self-aware things and mindless things? And that when they try to reduce everything to science it takes away everything that makes us see ourselves as human, or as meaningful?

Some have become angry at the suggestion that science has limits, as though science were some big person they depend upon, rather than a mental tool for making sense out of the universe. There are other tools. When one fails, why not switch to using another?

Some refuse to admit the validity of the questions. Some cannot admit that there are some things science does not apply to. These same persons will not reflect that there is a difference between a live body and a dead body, though the dead body contains all the particles that the live body had.

Some have betrayed their own bias in claiming that religions were made up by men to control other men. One might as well claim that scientific theories was made up by men who wanted to establish a rationale under which they could be regarded as superior to other men. And it does not matter whether it was expressed in terms of knowledge or in terms of their their genetic code, as if they were some kind of master race. It does not matter.

These are my thoughts on your very interesting (though confusingly phrased) question. If you would like to try adding some details to your question, or asking another one, I’d be happy to provide some more details in my next Answer.

7 JAN 07, 0234 hrs, GMT.

Answer 2

Whoa! Don't get mad about it, OK?

In order for TIME to exist you need at least TWO objects. Then you can measure their Distance ("space") and determine their movement (time).

The Big Bang says there was a "singularity", a point. But there is only ONE point, so there is no TIME until that point is divided into pieces. OK?

Because this singularity blocks our view of anything else that may have existed before it; we're stuck with that singularity as a starting point for any scientific theory or research. There is no "before" because there is a gap when "no time existed".

Without two objects there are few measurements possible.

As for multiple universes, the Big Bang had to have a push to begin, so the push had to originate elsewhere; thus, at least one other dimension must exist. And many others are likely too.

How's that?

Answer 3

They're on the way. I assume this question has a religious undertone? (You feel the bible has 'proof' otherwise?)

Year after year, science makes more and more discoveries and to the highest possible level of uncertainty.

Asking what you've just asking, is like asking a 5 year old to prove E = MC2. Give them a few more years working on it, (well, until they do a degree in Physics at least) and then they'll be able to tell you.

The same applies here, they're working out and proving new scientific theories day by day. They'll get there. Religion on the other hand, hasn't been able to 'prove' anything new since day one. Becoming more and more outdated every day.

Answer 4

There is no proof...and if you look into string theory and M theory you will find that they would have to be multiple dimensions (besides the 4 we know) and that time did exist prior to the big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

Answer 5

We can only theorize with objective analysis .
Proof may never happen but speculation will always be there.

Answer 6

There isn't any. Everything is simply a theory. Even if someone claims to have evidence, unless you can completely prove it, it's still just a theory

Answer 7

AL FA OMEGA CHILLS PIKE