Before The Big Bang!

[WITHTEETH]

The Vacuum Genesis

That theory is based on the Uncertainty Principle which says that every particle can, but the chance for it is very low, appear from the vacuum. According to the theory there are two options:

A. All the universe appeared in one moment. The chance that that kind of thing happened is VERY low, almost zero, but it is possible.

B. Many particles appaered and they were the base of the big bang. The chance is still very small but it's also possible.

 

Its more a philosophy of physics since there is no way to experiment this thought. atleast yet. and perfect vacuums in laboratories are impossible to make. also a vacuum means an area with no matter at all.

 

So give me comments, im intrested to hear them, this is all new to me!

[The Elite_elite]

I have to say, the Big Bang couldn't have happened. Nothing can't blow up and create everything. Plus, explosions destroy, not create. It would have to implode which is still impossible with nothing. To me, it makes more sense that something was always there. For me, that something is God. For others, it's the universe, and for others who knows what. You can believe the Big Bang, but to me it's just an illogical theory.

[WITHTEETH]

The big bang is really called a super cooled higgs feild. it sems possible to me

[Darth Launch]

I believe that the universe was created by evil magic pixies that got a little bored one day...

 

DL

 

P.S. Sorry WITHTEETH, I'm sleepy... will feck off now and leave you to an intellectual debate...

[Cantousent]

This is an intellectual exercise in which folks try to explain something for which we have no real explanation. The reason it's a theory is simple: there is no logical explanation for the spontaneous existence of matter. Atheists are compelled to submit a reason for the existence of matter and so this line of reasoning continues.

 

For what it's worth, there must still be some reason for matter spontaneously spawning in a vacuum. This need not be a believer vs. atheist debate, though. It's fascinating to consider exactly the mechanics by which matter exists in the universe.

[WITHTEETH]

this is not a theory, its a guess. just like saying there is a god.

[The Elite_elite]

this is not a theory, its a guess. just like saying there is a god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Right, it's more a leap of faith than anything else really. There's nothing that proves the Big Bang happened just like you can't know if there is a God or there isn't. You just have to chose which one you think makes more sense. Well, as long as everyone that comes in here is like this (respecting everyone elses views) this should be a good thread actually.

[WITHTEETH]

It seems as thought my description of a vacuum is currently wrong. a vacuum is not empty, there is still energey inside a vacuum. its called the casimir force.

[WITHTEETH]

"the origin of the universe is only a bigger form of the same experiment using the energy stored in the curved gravitational field (casismir effect i think!) of the primordial universe..as the driving spring." can't tell if source is realiable.

[WITHTEETH]

M Theory is the current idea of what happened before the big bang. i dont see a begining though... this one has to do with string theory and deminsions. string theory is basically small strings that vibrate, they make up everything, they unify everything.

 

 

M Theory

[Bokishi]

The universe was created by George Lucas, Duh.

[WITHTEETH]

collection of ideas of what happened before the big bang.

Ideas of what might have happened before.

[Cantousent]

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea, although I lack the education in the related field to make more than cursory observations about it. The whole stopping point, whether you believe in a spontaneous burst of energy or spontaneous creation of matter (and, at some point, matter and energy are equivalent), is that human beings naturally look for causes and effects. It really doesn't matter whether you contend that it is energy that created matter or matter that created the energy, humans will want to know why. The whole concept of science is based around how and why. To suggest that something "just happened" is just as much a stretch for the human mind as suggesting that it was created. I submit that we will never, on this earth, know the first cause. Science hasn't really gotten closer to knowing the why, only possibilities of the how. I find the how fascinating at any rate, and so I always read these threads with interest.

[WITHTEETH]

Isn't it intresting how mystries will get realted to God's always? There might be a god. maybe that god is what unifies us. the universe that does unify us. maybe that particle IS the god. its us, its everything. does it points fingers? i don't think so. its neutral. its always been nuetral.

With all of these great machines that we have to show us truth we still go to traditional methods. I can see how the traditional methods can be beneficial to many people. whats more important, happiness or reason? its a tough call...

[jaguars4ever]

M Theory

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fascinating.

[WITHTEETH]

I am not a religious man. The metaphor about the mustard seeds symbolizes that very unity in a perspective doesn't it?

 

Matthew 13:31-32

He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." (NIV)

 

Just though it to be intresting.

[Cantousent]

It is a tough call. For myself, I'm for every advance science can make. If I have a crisis of faith, it most certainly does not arise from science. Science describes our reality. It doesn't really concern itself with God at all. Science, as a discipline, is far more interested in proving science than it is in disproving God.

 

So, with that in mind, I don't think it's a choice of happiness or reason.

 

How the Universe came into being is a mystery, and I will go so far as to make one claim: a little mystery is a good thing for humanity. It is good that there are mysteries beyond our understanding. The end of mystery will be our end as well.

[Echoes]

Before the big bang? Before the big bang (or damp squib or whatever you believe it is that causes the movement that's evidenced by the red shift) there wasn't time. So there was no "before," it was just there when time (as we view it) started.

[Ace]

Plus, explosions destroy, not create.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Explosions do create. All of the heavy elements were created in the shockwaves of supernovae. If it wasn't for explosions there would never have been planets, or the elements for life.

 

Anyway, the idea of the possibility of something coming from absolutely nothing such as the case of virtual particles or universes is something a little uncomforting for some people.

[213374U]

Before the big bang?  Before the big bang (or damp squib or whatever you believe it is that causes the movement that's evidenced by the red shift)  there wasn't time.  So there was no "before," it was just there when time (as we view it) started.

Or space, for that matter. It's difficult to imagine how or what is like "outside" space itself or what happened "before" time because our perceptions and the very way our mind pictures ideas are both conditioned by our existing within this reality.

 

"What happened before the Big Bang?" may very well be a question without answer, or at least without an answer we can rationalize, much like n-dimensional spaces. They are easy to work with from a mathematical standpoint, but you can't imagine one, no matter how hard you try.

[Kaftan Barlast]

M-theory looks at events before the Big Bang, proposing that the Universe has 11 dimensions, six of them rolled up into microscopic filaments that can, for all intents, be ignored.

 

 

What they never bring up in these brief descriptions of string theory is that methods definition of what a dimension really is. "Mathematical" dimensions vs. "real" ones liek how an hypercube exists in a mathematical 4 dimensions but looks supiciously like a hexagonal cylinder in ordinary 3D view.

[metadigital]

... Nothing can't blow up and create everything. Plus, explosions destroy, not create. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. Dangerously ludicrous.

 

M-theory does not do away with the Big Bang. The evidence that everything emerged from a 'fireball' with a temperature of 10 billion degrees, expanding on a timescale of one second, is now very compelling and uncontroversial.

[Tuesday, 10 April, 2001, 15:49 GMT 16:49 UK, Before the Big Bang]

 

The Big Bang, if it happened, was a massive explosion of all matter and energy (mostly energy until some of calmed down a bit) that occured at least approximately 15 billion years ago.

 

Are you saying that crops won't grow on a volcanic mountainside? Volcanic soil is one of the richest sources of nutrients for plants. (Look at Papua New Guinea, Hawaii, Indonesia, etc.) Now think about a few billions of years, like from when the Earth was still cooling three billion years ago until 2.5 billion years ago, when armoured anthropods first skulked out of the sea onto land.

 

Furthermore, the aptly named Hubble telescope has maped large areas (still a small fraction of the sky); the galaxies (like our own small Milky Way, which contains hundreds of millions of star systems, and Andromeda, the next closest galaxy, which is on a glancing collision coarse with our galaxy, so in a few billion years there will be some stars smacking into each other) are all aligned in equi-distant spherical waves from an as-yet-invisible source, much like layers of an onion. Eventually we will be able to see the point of origin, it's just out of range at the moment. (We need to build a telescope bigger than an Astronomical Unit (AU) or so, by launching geostationary satellites at a large distance from Earth).

 

Also, a background noise has been detected that was predicted to be the "echo" of the Big Bang. It is now in the infrared spectrum, but clearly there as predicted by the Big Bang model, in the correct form.

 

You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion.

 

The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever.

 

Simple really.

[metadigital]

... To suggest that something "just happened" is just as much a stretch for the human mind as suggesting that it was created.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite. Logically, Occham's Razor is used to simply complex propositions. The universe exists. Axiom: I am here and I exist, whatever that means, therefore whatever this is is here, whatever that means. Adding another, unknown and unknowable quantity, like "God" or a creator for "this" is unwarranted and unreliable. You may choose to do so, but pure, blunt logic tells me "this" is here and that is all that is required.

 

Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur.

[Brickyard]

Well my personal theory (of which there really isn't any proof of, and perhaps some evidence to the contrary) is that before the Big Bang, there was a Big Collapse from the previous Big Bang, and we are in an endless cycle of Bangs and Collapses.

 

Now I know there is some evidence that the Universe is ever-expanding, so that sort of goes against the idea of a Big Collapse, but I don't think there's conclusive proof to that, but what do I know? But a cycle of Bangs and Collapses makes more sense to my mind than all those string theories and multiple dimension theories, so it's what makes sense to me.

 

Still doesn't explain why the matter/energy exists in the first place, though.

 

I really love listening to Micheau Kakou (horribly misspelled, I know), the theoretical physicyst that does quite a few radio and TV spots (especially on Discovery Science), but admit that sometimes I'm completely lost listening to him.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I just thought of something: IF a fourth-dimensional cube, a Hypercube rotates around a plane, wouldnt and eight-dimensional cube rotate around a cube?

 

 

..and how the hell can anything rotate around anything else than an axis?!