Thread: The Big Bang

I accept The Big Bang. 15 billion years ago, all the stuff in the universe was concentrated in a singularity, a speck of infinite density, a mathematical concept. It exploded. Energy and matter formed. Galaxies took shape. Edwin Powell Hubble showed that the universe is expanding and that the galaxies are rushing away from each other by applying The Doppler Effect. Space is being created. The universe may expand forever and burn out or collapse under its own gravity and explode again. There may have been billions of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Everyone asks, "What was before the Big Bang?" They say, "God," as if that is really an answer. Where did God come from? If God always existed, maybe energy always existed. Maybe theology is man's invention. Maybe not. I argue badly on both sides. Is man purely physical? Are we dead forever when we die? Are we spiritual? Is there something about us that survives death? Website: http://www.jimcolyer.com

If God always existed, maybe energy always existed. Maybe theology is man's invention. Maybe not. I argue badly on both sides. Is man purely physical? Are we dead forever when we die? Are we spiritual? Is there something about us that survives death?

Welcome to the forum.

The easy answer for me is that the reality we know is either designed so that we can't answer these questions no matter how hard we try, or it simply doesn't exist at all. I go with the theory we are just missing some very large piece of the puzzle that always leaves us asking how can we get something from nothing at all. I also beleave perhaps that the time span the universe has existed may be only a minute in our true existance.

Think of it this way, if life were a simulation, all matter and energy being mapped out on some form of a computer and the only thing we have to base our existance and passage of time on is the movement of things around us, this sumulation could play out as fast or slow as it wanted and we would not have a clue the speed had changed. If we could see some outside clock that was not part of the simulation then we would know it was changing.

It may also be that just like a video game the universe only renders whats visible to the subject. In other words if I'm not looking outside in some way shape or form it doesn't bother to create the outside.

Also I look at the detail of life and have to wonder, well how could a simulation produce such detail. It's simple, it has all the time in the world to do so. Do you ever wonder if you dream in real time, or does it all happen in a few seconds and you wake with the memory it was a long dream?

Even though i have done extensive research, I find it hard to believe in the big bang theory.

Me too.

I beleive in the Big Bang, but with one exception. If you have done any reading/research into String Theory you will know what I mean. I think that there was something in the universe and they collided, thus causing the "Big Bang". I think things in space collided with each other. It caused a massive explosion and releasing chemicals throughout the universe. I find it hard to believe in something cames from nothing.

Originally Posted by poly_nightmare

I beleive in the Big Bang, but with one exception. If you have done any reading/research into String Theory you will know what I mean. I think that there was something in the universe and they collided, thus causing the "Big Bang". I think things in space collided with each other. It caused a massive explosion and releasing chemicals throughout the universe. I find it hard to believe in something cames from nothing.

Well you kind of still would have to believe something from nothing, even if you believe in something colliding with something else, where did these things come from? I've not heard a theory yet that really explains this factor. I somehow think we are not suppose to get this info.

It's going to plague until the sun burns out. At some point, the theory of something from nothing has to exist. We are searching for answer, that we will probably never find.

I'm sure that all discussions regarding the Big Bang can only ever come down to the purely philosophical aspects for the existence of a "God" or not.

Seems logical that they must.

Dr. Stephen Hawking has ONE logical theory that if true, conclusively PROVES the existence of God.

And another, equally logical, that if true, PROVES that God cannot possibly exist.

I agree with Dr. Hawking, on both counts.

Originally Posted by Stuart Williams

I'm sure that all discussions regarding the Big Bang can only ever come down to the purely philosophical aspects for the existence of a "God" or not.

Seems logical that they must.

Dr. Stephen Hawking has ONE logical theory that if true, conclusively PROVES the existence of God.

And another, equally logical, that if true, PROVES that God cannot possibly exist.

I agree with Dr. Hawking, on both counts.

This is very true, in the end we may never know. If there is life after death perhaps we still will never know.

Dr. Stephen Hawking has ONE logical theory that if true, conclusively PROVES the existence of God.

And another, equally logical, that if true, PROVES that God cannot possibly exist.

That doen't make sense. What are the theories?

They are not both necessarily Hawking's own theories, but he discusses both at lenght in his books.

First there is the "no boundary cosmology theory" this theory says that there was not a beginning to the universe, and that time did not occur when the universe did but rather it evolved inside the universe into what we know it as today. This theory also states that at the moment that is thought to be the "Big Bang" is really when time emerged from the "cosmic foam" and came into what we know it as today.

The other theory is the Big Bang theory. I'm sure you are all familiar with it. This theory does prove the existence of a god because every cause has to have an effect. God created teh universe, it could not have just appeared out of nowhere without a cause.

I would also like to point out that the Big Bang theory would only prove that something set the universe into motion, and it is not necessarily a personal god that is still involved in our lives, as many religions teach. This theory would also prove that said "god" is not the universe nor is it contained in the univers, as many religions also teach.

So the theories are contrditing. I like the second though. that is how I view the "Big Bang" if thats even how the universe happened.

Basically it's a deist point of view, but I find it also a cowardice point of view. Who created God? God is omnipresent through time? Than why could space not have existed for ever?

I hardly feel the second theory likely explains everything. Sure, we might be wrong in claiming the first, but I don't feel the second, from a philosophical point of view proves any point whatsoever...

Mr U

The second is a lot like Intelligent Design.

This always comes down to, "what created that"?

That's one of the reason's I believe in a creator. Because it would take a power to create everything. When you start getting in the concept of God or WHAT created EVERYTHING you reach a point to where you're mind just stops and can't handle it.. lol, well I do! :P

It's kind of funny, but all of this talk about aliens and life on other planets and sometimes we don't realize but the concept of a creator is an alien. Another life-form.. I know I'm rambling..

It's not that I don't believe in the big bang, it's that it does not go back far enough. If the big bang starts with particles, what created the particles.. and what created that, and what created that.

I sometimes wonder if perhaps there's another dimension/universe beyond space. Seem's like I remember hearing that space was oval, and that it seem's endless because you just keep going around in circles.. like, well planets.. I probably heard this wrong, but it made me think (which can be dangerous)

well, i live on this theory...

I'm gunna live forever or die trying.

either way if there is a hell or isn't, i'm going to wind up there or just another dead person...i'm not going to lie to you...

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

The other theory is the Big Bang theory. I'm sure you are all familiar with it. This theory does prove the existence of a god because every cause has to have an effect. God created teh universe, it could not have just appeared out of nowhere without a cause.

I'd take issue with this statement on two levels:
Firstly, it's a logical fallacy (accidental I'm sure :wink: )
Secondly, and more importantly, there is your underlying assumption that effect always implies cause - is this true in radioactive decay? All we know is the probability that something will decay in a given time, not when. Also, random pair creation/annihilation events - caused by fluctuations in the energy of the vacuum, but what causes the fluctuations?
To say the effect always implies cause also implies a deterministic universe. Although you could argue that it is not possible for us to know all of the causes of an event, thus making it seem random, this is a "hidden variables" explanation, and I'm not fond of those. :P

The big bang, energy condensed into matter, the formation of galaxies, atoms forming molecules on the surface of a plant orbiting a star, molecules forming amino acids, proteins, unicellular organisms, evolving into multi-cellular organisms, evolving into conscious self-aware organisms, capable of subjectively experiencing their own nature and their environment.
Huge structures of particles that become self-aware and are able to perceive other structures of particles through their effects.
What a nightmare.
Is there an objective universe out there? Or only an infinite number of subjective points of view of things that have no absolute property until subjectively observed and measured.
Is life and death just a subjective creation of a human mind. Are we just ever changing structures of matter and energy. If you could stand outside the universe, if you could peer into it, like the surface of a Brane, would you see life and death, people and worlds, or just huge indistinguishable structures of the same fundamental particles? Is a human being different from a table?
If you looked close enough could you tell the difference between anything in the universe? Is it all just interacting particles of energy, that only through a subjective mind become separate.
God, the meaning of life, did anything exist before the big bang, is there anything outside of the universe, the afterlife, are these all just concepts created inside the brain, a result of its structure and evolution, its imperfect perception of its environment. Do any of these things have any real physical presence in the universe? Without human beings would all these things vanish, never to return no matter what intelligent life exists on other planets.
But then we are the very fabric of the universe and if we have a concept, it exists, as real and physical as anything else.
Who knows, we can’t. At best all we can do it try to explain the universe as we experience it. Which can never be as it is.

Originally Posted by btimsah

That's one of the reason's I believe in a creator. Because it would take a power to create everything. When you start getting in the concept of God or WHAT created EVERYTHING you reach a point to where you're mind just stops and can't handle it.. lol, well I do!

Funnily enough, I believe the opposite for the same reason. There cannot be a Creator because it would take a power to create everything. It's easier to believe that the Universe came about due to some zero point energy quantum event on a Megamassive scale*, than there is a being, an entity of some kind that must consist of even more power than the Universe it created.

Hi,

Looks like the same story throughout time. If man couldn't explain things there had to be one or more gods responsible. Not my bottle of beer.

Deutsch had an interesting idea. Not very unique, but it fitted his idea of quantum computers and the multiverse. Kind of a "Simulation Argument". Instead of being part of a computer simulation the laws of nature were the program and nature was the computer on which it ran. A variation of the deterministic universe. But I like the metaphore. "It From Qubit" - His variation of "It From Bit". It would cause problems for those who believe in free will, though. I like to think I have free will. It keeps me sane. I think.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I accept The Big Bang. 15 billion years ago, all the stuff in the universe was concentrated in a singularity, a speck of infinite density, a mathematical concept. It exploded. Energy and matter formed. Galaxies took shape. Edwin Powell Hubble showed that the universe is expanding and that the galaxies are rushing away from each other by applying The Doppler Effect. Space is being created. The universe may expand forever and burn out or collapse under its own gravity and explode again. There may have been billions of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Everyone asks, "What was before the Big Bang?" They say, "God," as if that is really an answer. Where did God come from? If God always existed, maybe energy always existed. Maybe theology is man's invention. Maybe not. I argue badly on both sides. Is man purely physical? Are we dead forever when we die? Are we spiritual? Is there something about us that survives death? Website: http://www.jimcolyer.com

you're incorrect saying that space is being created. Space is expanding, try to think of a rubber band being stretched. Be careful not to say that kind of incorrect statements, the expansion of space is virtually explained in all the popular books about Cosmology

I want to reconcile cosmology with Christianity. If the universe is middle-aged at 15 billion years, Jesus will return to save believers in the nick of time 15 billion years from this moment.

SAVE THE PLANET
http://jimcolyer.com/@tracks/20/lofi.mp3

A discussion that tries to reconcile cosmology with Christianity should be in the Religion forum. But while we're here, I find it odd that you should think that the Day of Judgement has to wait for the full potential age of the Universe. What would be the point of that? Incidentally, you've got a situation where all the souls of the dead are waiting around for practically eternity before they can join Jesus in His Kingdom, at which point he promises them actual eternity, of which of course the fifteen billion years they've been hanging around is less than an eyeblink. Don't be surprised to see a lot of people saying, "You know? I think I'll pass - oblivion for me, please!"

i read a different take on the big bang, which i accept more than others i have heard : basically the big bang stated WITH time; they take the idea that space and time cannot exist alone - it is one, a space-time continuim like einstein says...anyway its got to do with the uncertainty afflicting quantum physical processes, this uncertainty affects the "identities" of space and time and thus allows, for a very brief duration, for time to "take the form" of space and actually become another dimension of space. this is called the spatialisation of time and it is a CONTINUOUS process. it is at this very point that the universe came into existence.
it obviously has its flaws but it disputes the "explosion" idea if u know what i mean....

Originally Posted by DrNeedles

i read a different take on the big bang, which i accept more than others i have heard : basically the big bang stated WITH time; they take the idea that space and time cannot exist alone - it is one, a space-time continuim like einstein says...anyway its got to do with the uncertainty afflicting quantum physical processes, this uncertainty affects the "identities" of space and time and thus allows, for a very brief duration, for time to "take the form" of space and actually become another dimension of space. this is called the spatialisation of time and it is a CONTINUOUS process. it is at this very point that the universe came into existence.
it obviously has its flaws but it disputes the "explosion" idea if u know what i mean....

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin? remember our known universe is about 14 billion light years across and all indications are in each direction what we can see thru "Hubble", has progressed about the same. now through out the speed of light as the fastest known
speed. in order for us to see what Hubble suggest, would have had to happen well outside our known universe at speeds thousands of times faster than light and formation is/was in all areas similar. do you understand the inconsistencies in this statement...

Originally Posted by jackson33

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin?

In relation to the Big Bang this is a meaningless question. The Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. There is no distinction between here and there, since at the intiation of the Big Bang the Universe was a singularity.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by jackson33

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin?

In relation to the Big Bang this is a meaningless question. The Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. There is no distinction between here and there, since at the initiation of the Big Bang the Universe was a singularity.

Yes, as far as we know, and as far as the standard cosmology takes us, the BB was a singularity. Now let’s take that as the best we can do with “beginnings” and go forward from the instant after the Big Bang event itself and see if we can agree on nature of the energy displayed by that event.

I’m thinking, and correct me if you are thinking differently, that the bang was a release of energy and as the energy was released it created its own space in which to exist.

Using that small step of logic, I am thinking that the universe is that space created by the release of energy from the BB, and over time, as the energy expands it is creating space, and so the universe as we know it today is the same universe that emerged from the BB. It is bigger, but that is because it is still creating space as it expands.

Energy is what is expanding, and space that contains energy is what is being created. Everything is casually (caused by) connected to the big bang.

Energy and space are one in the same. Matter comes from the energy in space.

Would anyone agree? Say yes or no and why.

I am not a physicist. I am not adept at mathematics. I am therefore very cautious about expressing views that require a knowledge of either, or, as in this case, both.
I am wholly comfortable with my remarks about the Big Bang occuring everywhere. I am not certain whether to agree with your various statements, or not. I have no way of assessing them in comparison with the current standard BB model.

To All

The BB is a Hollywood (US) creation. Ha Ha.

NS

Originally Posted by bogie

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by jackson33

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin?

In relation to the Big Bang this is a meaningless question. The Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. There is no distinction between here and there, since at the initiation of the Big Bang the Universe was a singularity.

Yes, as far as we know, and as far as the standard cosmology takes us, the BB was a singularity. Now let’s take that as the best we can do with “beginnings” and go forward from the instant after the Big Bang event itself and see if we can agree on nature of the energy displayed by that event.

I’m thinking, and correct me if you are thinking differently, that the bang was a release of energy and as the energy was released it created its own space in which to exist.

Using that small step of logic, I am thinking that the universe is that space created by the release of energy from the BB, and over time, as the energy expands it is creating space, and so the universe as we know it today is the same universe that emerged from the BB. It is bigger, but that is because it is still creating space as it expands.

Energy is what is expanding, and space that contains energy is what is being created. Everything is casually (caused by) connected to the big bang.

Energy and space are one in the same. Matter comes from the energy in space.

Would anyone agree? Say yes or no and why.

no, we are not on the same page. first i am not a BB advocate and will argue any point of the theory, its conception, its progress and its apparent acceptance in the scientific world.

i understand the theory; the bang occurred and matter was discharged in all direction. any form of an explosion on earth or that of a star or any imaginable event, discharges into space and this space is pre-existent. the idea space was contained in the original package, be what ever that is imagined, defies logic, physics and common sense.

energy is the result of an action and matter is often this result, that occur es in space, stellar or on this planet. (its results on earth are influenced by atmosphere) and in space the results are only influenced
by its own results or that which was before. the energy displaces what is space or the darkness of space.

to my knowledge no one, will claim the BB occurred anywhere near what is our MW or galaxy and my question is of course how is it we take in through "Hubble", what is and progressively in all direction. this could not be, unless the original bang happened so far outside our known universe
and near instantaneous (certainly comparative) displacement of matter in all directions say 20 billion light years out of our vision and covered say
50 billion light years. then we could make sense of Hubble's images, but the prognosis is flawed.

now if you want to assume a total vacuum did exist and with out any resistance that matter displaced this vacuum a little quicker and some how could surpass light speed by a few thousand times, then you would also have to accept, the speed of light is no where the limit of some other forms, even outside our visual conception. we do see stars climax existence and this is not an assumed result.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by jackson33

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin?

In relation to the Big Bang this is a meaningless question. The Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. There is no distinction between here and there, since at the intiation of the Big Bang the Universe was a singularity.

which is most logical; everything is as its always been and there is no apparent need for a beginning (or) in 20 or 30 minutes all that is was created, with out a need, cause or apparent help???

um, that is not a question of logic and both positions are equally logical. You could argue one is rather ad hoc though - but then you are no longer in the realm of logic but in the murky realms of the philosophy of science.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by jackson33

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin?

In relation to the Big Bang this is a meaningless question. The Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. There is no distinction between here and there, since at the intiation of the Big Bang the Universe was a singularity.

which is most logical; everything is as its always been and there is no apparent need for a beginning (or) in 20 or 30 minutes all that is was created, with out a need, cause or apparent help???

What possible relevance does your question have to your original question and my response. They have no connection other than being about the Big Bang. Are you denying that the Big Bang happened everywhere simultaneously?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by jackson33

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by jackson33

let me ask you one question; if the big bang happened, with reference to the milky way, where did it happen, or the point of origin?

In relation to the Big Bang this is a meaningless question. The Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. There is no distinction between here and there, since at the intiation of the Big Bang the Universe was a singularity.

which is most logical; everything is as its always been and there is no apparent need for a beginning (or) in 20 or 30 minutes all that is was created, with out a need, cause or apparent help???

What possible relevance does your question have to your original question and my response. They have no connection other than being about the Big Bang. Are you denying that the Big Bang happened everywhere simultaneously?

if you are saying or implying- everything popped up at the same time, everywhere and as i understand the theory this includes space, time, energy, matter and all else except light, then i am suggesting the need for the theory lacks credibility and gives no authority over other theory. my point; light is hitting Hubble from all directions with a progressive time line in all directions. this and the age theory, indicates the known universe is the entire entity and all things in all direction, some how have evolved in identical manners and disregard light travel from beyond 14b/l/y is not possible, that nothing is beyond, not likely true.

you say created (by what) w/o need-cause or apparent help. what is there in the science world gives understanding to all this. put another way
if those are accepted theory, then the need to have a beginning point has no merit, to start with and if you need a beginning point, that infers you will need an end point, not apparent or implied. there are too many assumptions built into this theory that feed on itself and give no understanding of anything not found in other theory, require no additional
theory or assumptions or require explanations for a beginning or end and if thats not enough require explanations contrary to anything that is known
in science today.

Originally Posted by river_rat

um, that is not a question of logic and both positions are equally logical. You could argue one is rather ad hoc though - but then you are no longer in the realm of logic but in the murky realms of the philosophy of science.

please refer to what i wrote to moderator. my suggestion is the theory of the BB is substantially less based on logic, and on some philosophy, maybe as you suggest and other theory should be considered, even
dismissed by logic first, before such theory as BB become mainstream.

ill elaborate on a couple points; cosmic dust has been collected and in all cases the accepted carbon dating methods indicate -0- or too old to determine an age. we use the system and have determined earth is about 4-5 billion years old. no one has said this, but this may indicate this dust has been floating around or the remains of some system, well past the BB theory of 14-15 b/y/o. the first known reference to the BB, was done so by
George Lemiter in 1927 and Edwin Hubble furthered the theory to a point he was given title "father of" and based on observations, that in my opinion only prove older theory not initiating what i call a need for a new
theory.

What?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I am not a physicist. I am not adept at mathematics. I am therefore very cautious about expressing views that require a knowledge of either, or, as in this case, both.
I am wholly comfortable with my remarks about the Big Bang occuring everywhere. I am not certain whether to agree with your various statements, or not. I have no way of assessing them in comparison with the current standard BB model.

In the briefest of summaries, the universe is an expanding space-time entity that dates back to the singularity of the BB event, and it may or may not be infinite depending on the value of the cosmological constant referred to as “vacuum energy density”.

The inflation of the universe in the first picoseconds is thought to be the result of negative pressure from vacuum energy density that occurred along with the big bang which came out of an infinitely dense zero volume singularity.

This is where I have come to believe that the BB scenario is weakest (I know, I know, BBT doesn’t start with the singularity, it starts in the picoseconds after, but the scenario implies the singularity). I see it weak at this point because it would be much easier for the vacuum energy density to exist in space before the big bang. If so it would have existed as a low energy density around an almost infinitely dense mass like the universe must be envisioned in the first picoseconds after the big bang.

If the “singularity” was a big crunch of almost infinite density, surrounded by a huge arena of vacuum energy density in space that already existed, the big bang would be pulled (the exponential inflation) into space by the extreme low energy density of space, as the extremely high energy density of the big bang expanded into it.

This view eliminates the need for a singularity all together. It explains the inflation in the first instant after the big bang, and it gives some practical characteristics to matter and space as they relate to energy.

Those characteristics are:
Space contains energy.
Matter comes from the energy density of space.
A big bang is the burst of extremely high energy from a big crunch.
As a big crunch accumulates it generates a huge arena of low energy density space (over ~ ten trillion years) since the matter that forms into a big crunch came from the high energy density of space.
As matter forms from the energy density of space (beginning after the initial inflationary period), the energy density of space is lowered.
The lower energy density is always surrounding matter and eventually surrounding the big crunch that forms from matter due to gravity (which I have predicted comes from the low energy density of space that surrounds matter).
This low energy density pulls the high energy from the big bang back out into existing space causing the inflation that links the big bang to the current big bang universe.

Obviously I am not in the mainstream because this scenario cannot be proven. I only keep telling this story because it is makes more sense to me than “the universe came from nothing” scenario and the inflation of the universe came for “an internal negative pressure that was self-created just as the big bang was self-created” scenario.

Any comments?

if you accept that the thought everything must have a beginning, then you will lose the argument. the components of what BB suggest, with all the revisions, still implies things w/o a beginning and something had to put those elements there and/or start the actions to create the BB. it would be as easy to understand, for any one of several reasons, we do not understand the concept- nothing requires a beginning. if you can or do envision a beginning, you by the nature of the word, imply there must be an end. this would be, no doubt, because every theological explanation and the foundation for education gives both, none with one and not the other. also remember we are people and on average live 60-80 years, in
a universe we are told is 14-15 billion years old. even if you stretch it to the total intelligent life form and say 10k years, the relationship of man to time is just short of nothing, to that of the universe.

the expanding universe and many other opinions are based on the theory of BB. simply stated i believe, short of additional production of matter there is no need for expansion and all the elements for the death of and creation of systems are in the known universe, active doing the process of survival. the unknown universe, via Hubble, indicates must be twice the
known and logic can't put a limit on what the universe may consist of.

What?

bogie,
thank you for your last post. It was bloody brilliant. (Genuinely). When being taught the art of precis writing at school, I learned they should be clear, concise and comprehensive. Your post was exactly that.
This is not to say I agree (or, disagree) with you, but I certainly now have a very clear notion of where you are coming from, and why.

You stated: "If so it would have existed as a low energy density around an almost infinitely dense mass like the universe must be envisioned in the first picoseconds after the big bang."

I thought I had read recently that some researchers are arguing for something very much like this: that is, no singularity, just a very dense concentration of matter/energy. Did I imagine this?

Originally Posted by bogie

What?

I read Ophiolites post with some amusement believing it referred to the one I have quoted above, then the second paragraph hit me...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by bogie

What?

I read Ophiolites post with some amusement believing it referred to the one I have quoted above, then the second paragraph hit me...

My “what?” post was a tribute to the brilliance of Ophiolite who originally came up with that exact wording.

I was as surprised as everyone else to see what looked like a compliment about my writing skill. We may find out later that Ophiolite was in a very good mood about something off-line and lost all perspective for a brief instant, maybe only picoseconds.

Never-the-less, thank you Ophiolite! (I was tempted to post “What”, lol.)