Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By brane wave

Thread: (newb.) what was before the big bang

  1. #1 (newb.) what was before the big bang 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2
    Hello,
    I have a newbie question so please explain my ignorance as I know very little about cosmology.
    I read that when the big bang happened Hydrogen and Helium were produced and little lithium and beryllium.
    They then go onto create heavier elements.
    My question is, if this sequence goes on to create heavier and heavier elements, what came before Hydrogen and Helium if anything (the reverse)?
    Thankyou


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    7
    Following that 'Big Bang' event it is speculated to be a quantum soup of sub-atomical particles which extremely high energies, it was when this soup started cooling down that lower energies allowed for the interactions of these particles to form the first hydrogen atoms and the interaction between these atom to form helium etc etc all still with very high energies to allow this to occur.
    Note ! This isnt everyones idea but from my understanding tends to be the one thats hung around and keeps rearing its head up. Ask people what occurs before the big bang and how the big bang was created then your in much deeper territory of speculation and strong minded views.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2
    thanks for taking the time to answer.What are the sub atomic particles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Fundamental particles like quarks, photons, electrons, etc., which in various combinations create protons, neutrons and such.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    4
    How did the quantum soup of sub-atomical particles appear in the first place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5
    Just an Idea i would like to put across: another crazy one

    It could have been that before the big bang, the collection of sub-atomical particles had gathered together from a huge cloud of particles that eventually exploded over the period of qadtrilionbillion of years. That same cloud could have also made millions of individual universes in a galaxy cluster like we see today for example. When our universe exploded -in a unimaginable explosion- it blew all the other universe into the void of space and began creating our universe, as we see today. So in reality, whats happening now is not a big big, but something small like a simple supernova from an observation point so far away, its unwritable. The big bang is just another stage in the evolution of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    a hyperverse containing many universes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,508
    Quote Originally Posted by supernerd97 View Post
    How did the quantum soup of sub-atomical particles appear in the first place?
    We don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Contrary to popular presentations, the Big Bang was not an explosion. It was - and still is - the expansion of a singularity. Space did not exist; as far as I can tell from the information available - according to the math explaining the theory - matter essentially generates the space it occupies and the space between.

    So what happened before the Big Bang? So far, that is undefinable. Time can only be measured by the passage of events. No 'events' were happening - as the Universe did not exist yet - and so no passage of time can be measured, calculated or verified. So the amount of time of the singularity prior to the Bang is not a discoverable quantity. That would require some entity with a stop watch outside the normal bounds of what we think of as space time. So far, communication with any such being is non-verifiable from a 'scientific' point of view.

    Still, that does not stop a lot of speculation. The primary forms of speculation currently is the multi-verse series of theories. However, since all the multi-verse theories require 'other' universes than our own, floating in a grander mega-verse, AND none of the other multi-verses can be observed, detected, located, seen, traveled to or in any other manner - other than maybe gravity - it's pretty much just speculation and some specialized mathematics to fit the theory.
    The universe is a real place. However, you can't see it, you have to imagine it. Like it or not, God designed, built and sustains the Universe. Deal with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 The theory of inflation and the beginning of time 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131
    Read the book Inflation by Alan Guth and The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

    The theory of inflation postulates that there was something before the Big Bang. It is the "inflaton" particle which sprang into existence at a high energy by quantum mechanical fluctuation. Along with the inflaton, there must have been a gravitational field. This field must have been one whereby F = |GmM/rr|, having a hyperbolic gravitational field profile. Normally, a Newtonian entity would have a parabolic (F = GmM/r^2) gravitational field profile. But the inflaton is the mother of all black-holes, or MOAB. As a black-hole, the inflaton MOAB must have had a hyperbolic (proportional to 1/|rr|) gravitational field because it is a point mass having only a center but zero radius. Zero within the bounds of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that is. The symbol r is the unit vector associated with r, the radial distance to the center in graphs like the field profile. This unit vector makes dimensional analysis work nicely. It is a constant, so the related equation for F is the equation for a hyperbola.

    This has consequences because when the inflaton particle suddenly began to decay into the matter and energy we see today, the hyperbolic field began to decay as well. It began to transform into a parabolic (proportional to 1/r^2) gravity field because it was no longer a point-particle having zero radius. The profile of a hyperbolic gravitational field implies inherently higher energy than the equivalent parabolic field profile. So, as the hyperbolic field transitioned to a parabolic one, it released (and continues to release) its potential energy. This potential energy fueled and continues to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe (Hubble expansion). This acceleration effect is sometimes referred to as being due to Dark Energy. It is often suggested that Dark Energy stems from a fundamental new force, to be called "quintessence", but it could really be due to a gravitational effect as described here. A gravitational effect is called "Lamda", for Einstein's cosmological constant that he added to his general theory of relativity. Lamda has a positive value because decay of the hyperbolic (1/|rr|) field releases energy into the observable universe.

    Look up the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations as well as the Big Bang and Guth's inflation on the Internet. Wikipedia is a good place to start.
    Last edited by Gary Anthony Kent; November 28th, 2011 at 10:55 AM. Reason: clarify
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Time starts with the big bang, there is no "before" for it. At least that is what I am told the math says. Human minds don't work well with this answer but that's all we got.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 These are very serious possibilities 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Time starts with the big bang, there is no "before" for it. At least that is what I am told the math says. Human minds don't work well with this answer but that's all we got.
    Unless there is a "metatime" as part of a "multiverse", that is. These are very serious possibilities. (see Hugh Everett.) So, it is at least reasonable to speak of a precursor to the beginning of time in the sense that we know it. In Hamlet, Shakespear wrote: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your (mathematical) philosophy."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Time starts with the big bang, there is no "before" for it. At least that is what I am told the math says. Human minds don't work well with this answer but that's all we got.
    time had to start somewhere.

    whether it started at the big bang though is not certain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent View Post
    Read the book Inflation by Alan Guth and The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

    The theory of inflation postulates that there was something before the Big Bang. It is the "inflaton" particle which sprang into existence at a high energy by quantum mechanical fluctuation. Along with the inflaton, there must have been a gravitational field. This field must have been one whereby F = |GmM/rr|, having a hyperbolic gravitational field profile. Normally, a Newtonian entity would have a parabolic (F = GmM/r^2) gravitational field profile. But the inflaton is the mother of all black-holes, or MOAB. As a black-hole, the inflaton MOAB must have had a hyperbolic (proportional to 1/|rr|) gravitational field because it is a point mass having only a center but zero radius. Zero within the bounds of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that is. The symbol r is the unit vector associated with r, the radial distance to the center in graphs like the field profile. This unit vector makes dimensional analysis work nicely. It is a constant, so the related equation for F is the equation for a hyperbola.

    This has consequences because when the inflaton particle suddenly began to decay into the matter and energy we see today, the hyperbolic field began to decay as well. It began to transform into a parabolic (proportional to 1/r^2) gravity field because it was no longer a point-particle having zero radius. The profile of a hyperbolic gravitational field implies inherently higher energy than the equivalent parabolic field profile. So, as the hyperbolic field transitioned to a parabolic one, it released (and continues to release) its potential energy. This potential energy fueled and continues to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe (Hubble expansion). This acceleration effect is sometimes referred to as being due to Dark Energy. It is often suggested that Dark Energy stems from a fundamental new force, to be called "quintessence", but it could really be due to a gravitational effect as described here. A gravitational effect is called "Lamda", for Einstein's cosmological constant that he added to his general theory of relativity. Lamda has a positive value because decay of the hyperbolic (1/|rr|) field releases energy into the observable universe.

    Look up the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations as well as the Big Bang and Guth's inflation on the Internet. Wikipedia is a good place to start.
    The question of what was "before" the Big Bang is not actually valid in a physical and mathematical sense. All time-like geodesics have a pole at t=0 ( the moment of the Big Bang ), and cannot be extended beyond that ( let us disregard quantum effects for the moment ).
    A good way to illustrate this in two dimensions would be good old mother Earth - what is north of the North Pole ? It is immediately obvious that such a question is not well defined. Likewise - what is before the Big Bang ? This doesn't make sense. At the moment of the Big Bang no time and space existed in the classical sense, and "before" is not a valid concept in this context.
    This of course is a simplified picture - in reality there is no way to tell exactly what happens when t->0 unless we have a theory which unifies all fundamental forces, and their interactions. At the moment we just don't have that yet, even though there are some interesting approaches to that problem.
    As for the above treatment of gravitational fields, I would argue that these classical mechanical relations would not apply during the inflationary period as both relativistic and quantum effects play a substantial role. Also, how would you define your coordinate r ? Your relation would imply a 3D spherical universe with a given center point, which is obviously not the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by granpa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Time starts with the big bang, there is no "before" for it. At least that is what I am told the math says. Human minds don't work well with this answer but that's all we got.
    time had to start somewhere.

    whether it started at the big bang though is not certain
    I disagree. Time is purely a geometric concept, and you can picture it as one of the coordinates in a Riemannian manifold. As such it does not have an absolute "beginning", because the point t=0 depends on your choice of coordinates and the overall structure of the manifold and is merely a mathematical concept. It is simply a geometric pole for all possible time-like geodesics on R4. As such it is somewhat similar to the geometrical poles on Earth - in terms of our coordinates we have a zero-point, but physically there is nothing special about them.
    The other problem of course is that, once we get down to the order of magnitude of Planck time from t=0, the concept of "space-time" is no longer well defined because of quantum effects. The implications of this are not yet fully understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    As far as this universe is concerned time started at the 'big bang'......as we have no conceivable way to exit this universe then time beyond it is an unknown.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post


    The question of what was "before" the Big Bang is not actually valid in a physical and mathematical sense.
    A good way to illustrate this in two dimensions would be good old mother Earth - what is north of the North Pole ? It is immediately obvious that such a question is not well defined. Likewise - what is before the Big Bang ? This doesn't make sense.
    In reality there is no way to tell exactly what happens when t->0 unless we have a theory which unifies all fundamental forces, and their interactions. At the moment we just don't have that yet, even though there are some interesting approaches to that problem.
    I know that approaching this type pf question from the "common sense" point of view is usually disastrous, but I find it very difficult to accept that such a question is not "valid" or "doesn't make sense".
    I would accept, being told by a cosmologist, that the question is pointless, at the present time, but not that it should ever be described as "meaningless". I have seen that adjective used a number of times in books and articles.
    In a later post you say "time is purely a geometric concept". Do you mean time is simply an abstract mathematical concept? If that is the case what is happening in time dilation?
    Maybe I am not really arguing with your description of time, in the later post, and my question, about time dilation, is aimed more at those who appear to believe time to be purely a product, or invention, of the human mind trying to make sense of its surroundings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post


    The question of what was "before" the Big Bang is not actually valid in a physical and mathematical sense.
    A good way to illustrate this in two dimensions would be good old mother Earth - what is north of the North Pole ? It is immediately obvious that such a question is not well defined. Likewise - what is before the Big Bang ? This doesn't make sense.
    In reality there is no way to tell exactly what happens when t->0 unless we have a theory which unifies all fundamental forces, and their interactions. At the moment we just don't have that yet, even though there are some interesting approaches to that problem.
    I know that approaching this type pf question from the "common sense" point of view is usually disastrous, but I find it very difficult to accept that such a question is not "valid" or "doesn't make sense".
    I would accept, being told by a cosmologist, that the question is pointless, at the present time, but not that it should ever be described as "meaningless". I have seen that adjective used a number of times in books and articles.
    In a later post you say "time is purely a geometric concept". Do you mean time is simply an abstract mathematical concept? If that is the case what is happening in time dilation?
    Maybe I am not really arguing with your description of time, in the later post, and my question, about time dilation, is aimed more at those who appear to believe time to be purely a product, or invention, of the human mind in order to make sense of its surroundings.
    Hi Halliday, a very interesting post - you have a number of valid points here.
    What I meant by saying that the question, as originally posted, was meaningless is just this - time is only defined from the time of the Big Bang; in other words, if we were to rewind the clock, time and space would simply cease to exist at the Big Bang t=0. There is no "before", therefore the question what was "before" the Big Bang is meaningless. That is all I was trying to explain. It doesn't mean time came from nothing, or that it "started" at the Big Bang, it's just that the concept of time and space cannot simply be extended beyond t=0. I think a more appropriate question would be : how and why did time and space as we observe it today come into existence ? Why is the universe today 3+1 dimensional ? These, in turn, are very valid questions. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the adjective "meaningless", but rather "undefined" instead, for the original question isn't defined in the absence of time and space.
    Time is really a very complex concept - I readily admit that the geometrical interpretation of time is only one among other, equally valid, definitions; it all depends on the context I suppose. Here is a good overview over the different approaches to defining "time" :

    Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the context of science I personally favor the geometrical interpretation as utilized in General Relativity, but that is not to say that the other approaches are not equally valid. I do not, by the way, believe that time is purely a product of the human mind; no one would argue that, even in GR, time has special properties that clearly distinguish it from the other spacial dimensions, and that give it physical reality. I do however think that perception of time is intrinsically linked to the structure of consciousness; different intelligences might perceive time in a very different way from us humans.
    As for time dilation, no, it is not just an abstract concept, but a very real physical phenomenon. However it can be explained and visualized by the abstract concept of space-time curvature, which again is a geometrical concept. See the following articles :

    Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Introduction to mathematics of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Am I making sense ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    There is only on answer to the question
    And I will try and make it simple
    There was Nothing.
    But From nothing, which was infinite there was a basis of creation
    Within the Void of Nothingness, nothingness collided with nothingness
    and for every action there is a reaction, as we all know
    So
    From the reaction, came separation and because it was within Nothing, and could not exist as one. They could exist side by side
    So
    They separated Negative Nothing and Positive Nothing
    So
    Now Repeat the same process with the Positive Nothing and you create a Different nothing POS+1 then POS-1 and so on
    Now all of a sudden you have Nothing soup, all going there separate ways. Eventually over time with all different things happening in nothing (SOMETHING GIVES)
    The Big Nothing Bang (REACTION)
    So From Nothing, is the creation of something and this is . The beginning of time.
    I Hope this helped
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    There is only on answer to the question
    And I will try and make it simple
    There was Nothing.
    But From nothing, which was infinite there was a basis of creation
    Within the Void of Nothingness, nothingness collided with nothingness
    and for every action there is a reaction, as we all know
    So
    From the reaction, came separation and because it was within Nothing, and could not exist as one. They could exist side by side
    So
    They separated Negative Nothing and Positive Nothing
    So
    Now Repeat the same process with the Positive Nothing and you create a Different nothing POS+1 then POS-1 and so on
    Now all of a sudden you have Nothing soup, all going there separate ways. Eventually over time with all different things happening in nothing (SOMETHING GIVES)
    The Big Nothing Bang (REACTION)
    So From Nothing, is the creation of something and this is . The beginning of time.
    I Hope this helped
    It hasn't helped me but I am sure I will be corrected, by others, if you really have answered the question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Imagine a Bomb, it can be any size you want = ( The only thing to remember,it does not exist ) Imagine
    So the BOMB= Nothing ?
    So as was mentioned, about POS+ POS- and so on Going on inside the Bomb, Reaction
    Eventually the bomb explodes . So now the bomb does not exist.? What are you left with.

    EPR paper

    The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts." In the words of Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."[7] According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of either particle exactly. However, claim EPR, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A and at the same time or a later time measure the exact momentum of particle B. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, with the exact momentum of particle B known, the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. "EPR argued that they had proved that ... particle B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum."
    EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of Quantum Mechanics: Quantum theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR thought experiment purports to show that they must all have determinate values. The EPR paper says: "We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete."[8]
    The EPR paper ends by saying:
    While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    It hasn't helped me but I am sure I will be corrected, by others, if you really have answered the question.
    Ignore it - it is pure nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    It hasn't helped me but I am sure I will be corrected, by others, if you really have answered the question.
    Ignore it - it is pure nonsense.
    And that is a very generous assessment!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    Interesting analogy...but its still creates nothing....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    People find It easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend.
    Its always been the same
    Some used to believe the earth was flat. and if they sailed to far they would fall off the end.
    So what is the big answer if my theory is pure nonsense
    I am looking forward to it. knowledgeable One !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    People find It easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend.
    Its always been the same
    Some used to believe the earth was flat. and if they sailed to far they would fall off the end.
    So what is the big answer if my theory is pure nonsense
    I am looking forward to it. knowledgeable One !
    I actually wholeheartedly agree with you in saying that people find it easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend. It has been true throughout history, and many examples can be found throughout this forum as well.
    I think, Genesis, your idea falls down because it is self-contradictory. If there is truly "nothing" ( in itself a nonsensical statement btw - how can there "be" "nothing" ??? ), then no physical processes of any kind can take place. At the time of Big Bang time and space weren't yet in existence, so models about collisions, separations etc will all fall down because there is no physical basis for them in the absence of a classical space-time.

    I wish I could tell you what the "big answer" really is; there is no telling until we have succeeded in developing a full "Theory of Everything" which unifies all fundamental forces. There are some interesting approaches to the problem out there, but of course we don't know yet which one - if any of them - will be viable.
    I personally suspect that the point of Big Bang t=0 does not actually exist. I believe on a microscopic level ( order of Planck length or below ) space-time itself becomes discrete - it is made up of discrete, unordered "pieces" (simplexes) of a geometric manifold that may or may not have 3 dimensions. Note that this is not "nothing", it just means that space-time is not a continuum ( i.e. path and distance between two points is not defined ). Only when these simplexes are joined together in an ordered manner does our regular space-time appear. If you join the simplexes in such a way that their directional vectors in the 4th dimension line up, you can immediately explain why time seems to point in only one direction ( the future ) within our universe. Most attributes of the emerging space-time in this picture will follow naturally from first principles - it is quite elegant, really.
    Under this model, the "Big Bang" just simply is the instant in which the discrete simplexes combine to form space-time; it is the beginning of ordered time and space as we know it. The simplexes themselves, being the basic "fabric" of reality, have no beginning and no end, and there would be a very large, perhaps infinite, number of ways to combine them to form manifolds with different topological and geometrical properties, and hence different laws of physics. There wouldn't need to be a beginning or end to the universe, only changes from one form to another. This is also the reasons why I stated before that the term "before the Big Bang" does not make physical sense.
    Note please that this model is just a personal belief of mine for which there is no observational evidence at present. I do not claim this to be the "big answer", just an idea about what the answer could conceivably look like. Mathematically this could be formulated along these lines :

    Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Causal sets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Starting from M-Theory I could think of another answer to your "big question" as well, but I'll leave it at this for the moment, or else this post becomes too long and unwieldy...
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 11th, 2011 at 05:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    like i say...its a reasonable good model...but still needs a start switch...my analogy is ,you have conceived an engine....but it still need a kick start
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    like i say...its a reasonable good model...but still needs a start switch...my analogy is ,you have conceived an engine....but it still need a kick start
    You are absolutely right, any such model will need to be able to explain not only how, but also why space-time emerged as it did. This is where it gets really interesting. At the moment I have no answer for you on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    It boils down to something from nothing really....from a 'start point' it is easy to theorise...causality is a possible answer...but with that,comes many problems...i remain open minded though...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    It boils down to something from nothing really....from a 'start point' it is easy to theorise...causality is a possible answer...but with that,comes many problems...i remain open minded though...
    Yeah, I think once a viable theory of quantum gravity emerges we will have a much clearer picture. At the moment it is all just conjecture, really...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    People find It easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend.
    Its always been the same
    Some used to believe the earth was flat. and if they sailed to far they would fall off the end.
    So what is the big answer if my theory is pure nonsense
    I am looking forward to it. knowledgeable One !
    I actually wholeheartedly agree with you in saying that people find it easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend. It has been true throughout history, and many examples can be found throughout this forum as well.
    I think, Halliday, your idea falls down because it is self-contradictory.
    Are you referring Halliday, or Genesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    There are numerous good models for singularities..and how space time can evolve from a point singularity.....purely hypothetically,you understand...as it involve pre big bang modelling....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    People find It easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend.
    Its always been the same
    Some used to believe the earth was flat. and if they sailed to far they would fall off the end.
    So what is the big answer if my theory is pure nonsense
    I am looking forward to it. knowledgeable One !
    We don't know what the big answer is, but it certainly isn't that "nothingness collided with nothingness", which is so not right that it is not even wrong!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    People find It easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend.
    Its always been the same
    Some used to believe the earth was flat. and if they sailed to far they would fall off the end.
    So what is the big answer if my theory is pure nonsense
    I am looking forward to it. knowledgeable One !
    I actually wholeheartedly agree with you in saying that people find it easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend. It has been true throughout history, and many examples can be found throughout this forum as well.
    I think, Halliday, your idea falls down because it is self-contradictory.
    Are you referring Halliday, or Genesis?
    My sincere apologies, I meant to be referring to Genesis in post #19. Entirely my mistake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    some say the big answer is 42
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    People find It easy to dismiss what they cannot comprehend.
    Its always been the same
    Some used to believe the earth was flat. and if they sailed to far they would fall off the end.
    So what is the big answer if my theory is pure nonsense
    I am looking forward to it. knowledgeable One !
    We don't know what the big answer is, but it certainly isn't that "nothingness collided with nothingness", which is so not right that it is not even wrong!
    "So not right that it is not even wrong."
    I like your way of thinking
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    I am merely paraphrasing Wolfgang Pauli.

    Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I am merely paraphrasing Wolfgang Pauli.

    Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Brilliant !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    some particles have a different mass in empty space than they do in an atomic nucleus.
    Some particles lose mass as in the case of disappearing mass
    Particles containing strange quarks become lighter when embedded within nuclei, according to experiments that confirm an effect seen previously with up and down quarks.
    If mass can just disappear does that lost mass equate to Nothing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    energy can radiate you know...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    If mass can just disappear does that lost mass equate to Nothing
    No, it equates to energy (the old e = mc2 thing)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    And can the energy return to mass?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,508
    Yes. m = e/c2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Now if we were talking Negative Energy what would be the equation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    just put a minus sign in front
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Physics suggests equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made in the Big Bang.
    so to create +1 AND -1 surely 0 has got to be the start or Nothing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    Using a ternary based binary model is very usefull....to study nothing,you first have to know precisely what 'something' is...perhaps that sounds philosophical...and maybe it is..but it is a good scientific subject
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    It is only how we perceive Nothing and it's what's in between zero - / + zero that holds the answer to something
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    Physics suggests equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made in the Big Bang.
    so to create +1 AND -1 surely 0 has got to be the start or Nothing
    Not really. If matter and anti-matter annihilate you don't get "nothing", you get a quantity of energy equivalent to the mass of the original matter+antimatter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    So what is the point where matter and anti matter form
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    That would be the Big-Bang, as you mentioned above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    That would be the Big-Bang, as you mentioned above.
    Or after 10^-37 sec after the big bang
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    So can we say Nothing is a super dense point before time. ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    So can we say Nothing is a super dense point before time. ?
    That sounds like Something to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    245
    you can say nothing/something are binary states.just like + and minus...large and small....hot and cold...etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    So can we say Nothing is a super dense point before time. ?
    That sounds like Something to me.
    Before Time it could be Nothing, a point before time. or something you could not measure, immeasurable or nothing. An interesting subject never the less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    It is a common misconception that the Big-Bang theory claims the universe came from nothing.

    The actual state of affairs is that the theory simply says nothing of where the universe came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3
    how can an unconcious universe with out a conscience, produce living beings who are concious an have a conscience.time is matter in motion thats all.it all started at that singularity.that singularity came from what.my reason says it all had to come from something outside of it all, that produced the somethings all round us.my studies an the evidence for all of this is the god of the bible.an even archeology backs me up plus a preponderance of other evidence.again why does anything exist at all! something cannot come about on its own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3
    i would also add, can any other thing or sustance whether non living or living ponder the universe like we humans can!.how is is that we can talk on these forums about the whole universe around us,describe many of the laws of physics,an dig into the whys an hows.how is that possible.CAUSE WE ARE SPECIAL, an i feel we are much more then the whole universe can ever be.the universe is unconcious like i said above.but in my humble opinion god made us all, an is the only sensible answer.when someone writes on the beach or builds a castle .an we never saw that person do it.we know it took intelligeance to do that.now look at the universe an we say scientists say oh ,it all came from itself or we can prove that event happened from an unconcious happening.no way.its all too arranged for me to ever accept that kind of answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    Physics suggests equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made in the Big Bang.
    so to create +1 AND -1 surely 0 has got to be the start or Nothing
    If Guth's solution to the horizon and flatness problems is correct, inflation means that the universe was an ultra high energy "inflaton" particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field", one particle among many (Hugh Everett, Many Worlds). It was a quantum object. If it was once a quantum object, then it still is.

    Then, John Archibald Wheeler's concept of quantum interference comes to the fore. If the universe, composed of matter, is symbolized by "A", then it can interfere with ITSELF to produce another universe we can call "B", which is all antimatter. There are all sorts of harmonics that we can postulate, but all these universes have "mass". This is an alternate way of thinking about the "missing mass" problem. Anyway, there is no mystery about the absence of antimatter in our universe. It is all sequestered in our interference twin. It is not far away. A good particle accelerator can punch through to the other side! Antimatter particles can be forced to exist here, in our Alice in Wonderland copy of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3
    gary i have a masters degree in physics but im 65 years old now an i have tried to keep up with all the latest.an im aware of guths work.but it seems the more we wrestle with the universe an where its all came from new questions pop up.again i ask plainly how can something come from nothing.evolution has many faults in many areas.a monkey is light years away from humans.so the universe explodes from the big bang an we have chaos pruducing order,like quantum states.but where did that come from.how can nothing produce something governed by laws of physics.that tells me a powerfu being (whatever you call it) was outside of our reality an not subject to time an space.that makes sense,otherwise we come back t0 infinite regress with more questions. an no answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is the bang bang just a theory?
    By Xan in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 1st, 2011, 11:59 AM
  2. Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang
    By ajaybali in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 08:48 AM
  3. Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang
    By Harry Costas in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: December 6th, 2008, 10:56 AM
  4. Newb to Forum - Amateur Mad-Scientist checking in
    By Slightlymadscience in forum Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2008, 12:39 AM
  5. Theory of relativity-newb or pro disscusion
    By Gablo51 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 21st, 2007, 06:28 PM
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
  •