3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHi, Im Jess. I am new to the forums.
I am wondering if anyone has any ideas about whether on not it is possible to determine characterstics of what existed (if that is even the right word) before the big bang occurred?
Thoughts?
Jess
July 7th, 2012, 04:35 AM
Hi, Im Jess. I am new to the forums.
I am wondering if anyone has any ideas about whether on not it is possible to determine characterstics of what existed (if that is even the right word) before the big bang occurred?
Thoughts?
Jess
Um... no. Before the big bang, everything were packed into a point, what else could we determine beyond that?
The best I Can tell you is that there is a theory called the Pre-Big Bang Sceario which is based on quantum cosmology. Unfortunately that stuff is way over my head. See Time before the Big BangOriginally Posted by Jess.d
When two branes collided during a time of vibration, this Universe came to be. Before that, there were just the branes and other universes as occurrences. *faints*
there is nothing to wonder. Science explains the thing.... but its not perfect it anything. In science we always start defining the things by word "SUPPOSE", this means that first we make HYPOTHETICAL explanation and then prove it wrong/correct. And BIG BANG??? Have any one seen it ? NO, its hypothetical tooo... and now we are checking our hypothesis. So If u say that Its possible to determine the Character of what existed, then i would probably say that 'We first make Hypothesis, by correct explanation and some Known science (history) we can make hypotesis, after that we shall try to prove "IF THE THINGS WERE ACCORDING TO IT" .... SO ITS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT EXISTED, BUT WE CAN TELL WHAT SHOULD HAVE EXISTED. IF YOU WILL STUDY FURTHER THEN YOU WILL KNOW THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NOT PERFECT RATHER ITS BASED ON APPROXIMATIONthese are my own beliefs, but anyone can comment on it, i will appreciate every positive and negative feeds
Last edited by MeteorWayne; July 7th, 2012 at 09:42 AM.
There could be infinite question WHERE DID IT CAME FROM?????
YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL BY SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. IT HINTS YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOO WEAK TO BE DISCUSSED like a normal person.
we can ask what is the most plausible thing to have existed before the big bang.
huh..............I wonder!!! you need explanation that every body knows..... i will only remark that, writng in capital letter does not reveal anything....I might be a fool, but who are you?YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL BY SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. IT HINTS YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOO WEAK TO BE DISCUSSED like a normal person.
yes i can consider this answer to be fool one tooo................ Just imagine only....you will never be perfect again....but you cal reach to perfectness???? Science is still APPROXIMATION........................its not a perfect
Well that makes something less than sense.
I think the point pf word salad is that it doesn't make sense
There's so little to it, I'm not sure it even qualifies as word salad. Maybe just the shredded lettuce you get on a taco.
Well, at least he knows how to post properly.
And his point is quite valid, because posting in capitals really does make you look foolish.
I think the actual point Victor is trying to make is correct, however badly he put it.
We can only have a working hypothesis about the nature of the Big-Bang. We can never "prove" it absolutely. Such is the nature of science.
But that doesn't mean that any hypothesis is just as valid as any other. We need to construct a theory based on that hypothesis that makes predictions we can test. If the test validates the prediction, the hypothesis remains a valid one.
July 8th, 2012, 12:14 PM
Jess,
1) anything is possible the does not violate the presumed to exist, metaphysical cosmic laws/principles,
2) were presuming a "big bang"-- aka the big grunt from a womans birthing perspective,
3) some theories say it is impossible because the big bang/grunt was initiating of a spacetime,
4) if possible, it is unlikely any intelligent biologicals will ever be able to access such information to know what characteristics existed before the big bang,
5) a simplistic, if not common sense view, would think that if the big bang was similar to a explosion outward of stuff radiationally, the what existed before was compactification/compression of stuff into a smaller area.
6) how we define and view/percieve what a big bang was is also intimate to the question of defining what was before.
Rybo the Rybot
Hi
Jess
This might answer your question, but this is a belief just like the big-bang. I believe that there is such thing called a multi-verse. Which allowed this universe to be created.
My proof
How could so much matter, dark matter, and mass explode without something triggering it?
How would something be able to gather so much energy without there being something already?
This would state that the multi-verse contains our universe, which contains the milky way
The determining of this is possible but it is highly unlikely in the modern world. We will need to advance in our technology to view past this universe. Yet this also means that as the universe gets bigger so does the multi-verse. Which means that we will need to invent such technology that allows us to see growth with the universe. Which is why it is highly unlikely. Thanks for the consideration!
The Big-Bang is not a "belief" like the multi-verse. Whilst the concept of a multi-verse might seem like a logical answer to some of your questions, there is currently no way we can test the hypothesis - to test it we need there to be evidence for it in our universe.
The Big-Bang theory, however, makes a lot of predictions about things we can test for - things for which there is evidence in our universe. Whilst we cannot "prove" the Big-Bang happened, there is a lot of observational evidence that is consistent with the predictions for a Big-Bang universe. The same is not true for the multi-verse concept, as of yet.
This is a common misconception. The Big-Bang says nothing about where the universe came from, and does not deal with "before". But this does not mean the Big-Bang says the universe came from nothing and there was no before. A lot of people infer this, but it is not implied.
"The Big-Bang theory, however, makes a lot of predictions about things we can test for"
Can you give examples of these "things we can test for"?
typology1
Off the top of my head, how about the abundance of lighter elements in a younger universe, and the effect of a hotter CMB on gaseous regions in the distant past, both of which have been observed. We have evidence that there used to be an abundance of lighter elements in the universe, and that the universe used to be hotter.
There are many many more, like for instance the Tolman test for the predicted reduction in the surface brightness of an object, due to the effect of the expansion of the universe on the apparent size of objects at a distance.
Here is a list of the evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
| « How do gravitational force lines work? | Double-Slit: Possible Reason for Disappearance of Interference » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
