Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The big bang

  1. #1 The big bang 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4
    I'm doing a bit of reseach into the big bang, I found some sources on what happened that caused this big bang, or more acurately what happened before it, and the general answer that before the big bang there was "nothing".

    I understand that there was no time nor space as we know it. But could it be posible that a "realm" existed before the big bang (with no space or time) which contained the singularity (or maybe it WAS the singularity), this could have contained the raw materials/building blocks for time, space, matter, etc.

    Thanks for any answers

    Matt


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,011
    No one really knows what was the universe before (or even at) the big bang. There are lots of ideas floating around, but no one knows how to test any of them.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day mathman

    Why assume that there was an origin and not a cyclic process to explain the ongoing universe?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    The problem is the concept of cause and effect. A cause can only trigger an event, if there is time, i.e. the order of the two is right. So, how can anything cause an event, if there is no time? Therefore, if this concept applies also for the big bang, then everything that might have existed or happened "before" it is either impossible or irrelevant.

    There is another realm in physics, where this concept might not be entirely valid. This is quantum mechanics. And maybe, here lies the solution of the intellectual problem of generation without an obvious trigger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Dishmaster

    You said

    There is another realm in physics, where this concept might not be entirely valid. This is quantum mechanics. And maybe, here lies the solution of the intellectual problem of generation without an obvious trigger.
    Please explain
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: The big bang 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Mattylaws
    I'm doing a bit of reseach into the big bang, I found some sources on what happened that caused this big bang, or more acurately what happened before it, and the general answer that before the big bang there was "nothing".

    I understand that there was no time nor space as we know it. But could it be posible that a "realm" existed before the big bang (with no space or time) which contained the singularity (or maybe it WAS the singularity), this could have contained the raw materials/building blocks for time, space, matter, etc.

    Thanks for any answers

    Matt
    The BBT is not science. It is cosmoGONY and therefore, a religion.

    Have faith in the real science like the LAWS of CONSERVATION.
    These imply that there was no beginning and there will be no end to our physical universe.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    Please explain
    Well, generally, quantum mechanics follows laws and rules. But a single event cannot be predicted. It only happens with a certain probability. So, the concept of cause and effect seems violated, because it cannot be predicted, when it will happen - only that it will happen - although the conditions for this do not change (c.f. radio activity).

    See e.g. the phenomenon of pair production, where apparently, out of nowhere, pairs of electrons and positrons are created. If investigated in detail, this is of course not entirely true, because the right amount of energy (i.e. photons) is needed. However, the related phenomenon of virtual particles seems to "borough" this energy from somewhere.

    So, if the concept of the Big Bang (no, it is not a religion, even if it was wrong - could be discussed somewhere else) was true, the entire spacetime was concentrated on a very small region, where quantum mechanics would have dominated. One could now speculate, whether a non-deterministic event (violation of cause and effect) could have been the "begin" of the universe as we know it without the need of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: The big bang 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Mattylaws
    . . . what happened that caused this big bang, or more acurately what happened before it
    Matt
    Look around you. What do you see? I see a fish pond where if I remove a single fish, the entire population collapses (if it's at a critical point). I see an enormous bridge, where if one small rivet fails, it falls into the river; where a 2% genetic difference distinguishes man from chimp. Why does evolution seem punctuated by rapid change? Why do other phenomena have "breaking points"? These are examples of critical point dynamics: A point is reached which causes an abrupt qualitative change in the dynamics of the system. Are these and many more examples of "criticality" just ripples from a larger storm? Then consider the question, "why does a new universe come into existence?". What may have existed before it?

    Is is possible our universe arose from a critical point occurring in some preexistent dynamics which caused it to qualitatively and abruptly change state? Would that pre-existence be so qualitatively different from our world that our concepts of matter, space, time, energy cannot be applied to describe it? That would explain our inability to come to terms with "beginning" and "nothing" since these terms imply time and matter; distinct properties of our Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    People can build a foundation based on logic and great words and ad hoc ideas and grow a theory that people become emotional over. In time the theory is accepted by main stream.

    THis occurs throughout history. People have short term memories.

    This is why the true scientist does not float down main stream, the scientist looks at the evidence and in many cases goes up stream against the flow.

    An opinion is not evidence.


    ==============================================
    Dishmaster said

    So, if the concept of the Big Bang (no, it is not a religion, even if it was wrong - could be discussed somewhere else) was true, the entire spacetime was concentrated on a very small region, where quantum mechanics would have dominated. One could now speculate, whether a non-deterministic event (violation of cause and effect) could have been the "begin" of the universe as we know it without the need of time.
    God knows why and how the BB became the standard model. Regardless like any other theory it must stand on its foundations. Look at the evidence and not the main stream flow or you will get washed with them.

    Stand back and question. Do not take my word.

    Take one little issue. To explain the formation of over 100 billion galaxies in a very short period of 500 million years. The BB people brought in ad hoc ideas about faster than the speed of light and so on to make the model work. When you start doing things like this it becomes a religion. Why do churches and politics support the BBT by offering money only for BBT projects in the past.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I'm not saying the Big Bang concept is correct. Read my words. I just think, it is the one explaining the observable phenomena best. Everyone agrees, it still needs modifications. This is why, it is still a discipline of active research. And about this "religion" thing: Religion postulates a concept and then tries to tie observations of the world to it. In science, it is opposite way around: There are phenomena that need explanation, and different concepts (theories eventually) are created to do that. Every "true scientist" agrees that there is no definitive truth, only more probable and less probable solutions. Usually the most successful (in describing nature) wins until a better one turns up. The history of science is full of examples, where old theories that were regarded as the ultimate truth were replaced by new ones. This is the strange thing with science: you cannot prove a theory, you can only disprove it, if it is wrong. Every piece of evidence for a theory only makes it more likely to be true.

    Nothing is won with the idea of an oscillating universe. You still need to answer, how it is possible and what drives the oscillations. Where does the matter and the energy come from? So, you see, the same problems all over again. Current observations even clearly seem to contradict with this idea, because the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating.

    And it does not matter, if you build 100 billion or only one galaxy, because the formation of one is not influenced by the other. So, either galaxies can be built or they cannot. If the idea of isotropy of the universe is correct, then building 100 billion galaxies is as hard as building only one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day dishwasher


    You said

    Nothing is won with the idea of an oscillating universe. You still need to answer, how it is possible and what drives the oscillations. Where does the matter and the energy come from? So, you see, the same problems all over again. Current observations even clearly seem to contradict with this idea, because the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating.

    And it does not matter, if you build 100 billion or only one galaxy, because the formation of one is not influenced by the other. So, either galaxies can be built or they cannot. If the idea of isotropy of the universe is correct, then building 100 billion galaxies is as hard as building only one.
    Matter has always being here in one form or another. This can only occur through a cyclic process. As for expansion and accelerating universe. Tell that to the observable universe and not to the theoretical universe. Look out there and tell me what you see. There is a clustering merging effect of stars and galaxies.

    As for the formation of galaxies, I would ask you to do a bit of research on the complexty. It ain't what you think.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    Matter has always being here in one form or another.
    If this is not "ad-hoc", then what is? Which of the millions of observations and facts supports this claim?
    Of course, I am aware of clustering and merging. I don't know, however, what this has to do with the point in question here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    God knows why and how the BB became the standard model.
    Maybe, if he exists. But I think, I already gave an answer to this. It has nothing to do with stubborn scientists or conspiracies, as one of your arguments seems to imply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    Why do churches and politics support the BBT by offering money only for BBT projects in the past.
    Science is a constant competetion of ideas. So, what observations that cannot be explained by the BB model are solved by the oscillating universe idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9
    Yeah thats a good point. if the universe is so huge, then what if there is another universe and our universe is just like a big planet. i know its sounds silly but its a good theory

    please help
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •