What do you believe preexisted the Big Bang?

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Il Drago Museveni Il

Which is What I got from the article on wikipeda too but when the black hole "Evaporates" as that article put it wouldn't the paradox still exist because the holographic representation would no longer exist?

The information is carried away by the Hawking radiation whose direction and intensity was determined by the inbound object. Since the outgoing radiation depends on the shape of the event horizon and any deformation of the event horizon must contain information regarding the falling objects mass and position, the mass and position of the object is then encoded into the outgoing photons in an indirect way [a photon falling into a black hole is "destroyed," but the information concerning it is carried out by how it changed how the black hole emitted photons while it was falling in]. And since the outgoing photons are emitted [essentially] from the event horizon, it can be said that the information concerning the falling objects is stored on the surface of the black hole.

[Again, this is just my interpretation of the Wikipedia article. I don't really want to delve into the mathematics of it right now, though it seems that I will have to sooner than later seeing as my field likes to borrow math from string theorists.]

[Il Drago Museveni Il]

Doubtful Dreamer

Il Drago Museveni Il

Which is What I got from the article on wikipeda too but when the black hole "Evaporates" as that article put it wouldn't the paradox still exist because the holographic representation would no longer exist?

The information is carried away by the Hawking radiation whose direction and intensity was determined by the inbound object. Since the outgoing radiation depends on the shape of the event horizon and any deformation of the event horizon must contain information regarding the falling objects mass and position, the mass and position of the object is then encoded into the outgoing photons in an indirect way [a photon falling into a black hole is "destroyed," but the information concerning it is carried out by how it changed how the black hole emitted photons while it was falling in]. And since the outgoing photons are emitted [essentially] from the event horizon, it can be said that the information concerning the falling objects is stored on the surface of the black hole.

[Again, this is just my interpretation of the Wikipedia article. I don't really want to delve into the mathematics of it right now, though it seems that I will have to sooner than later seeing as my field likes to borrow math from string theorists.]

but... Holographic representation is what we are using because hawking radiation doesn't carry any data. So to solve the paradox the holographic representation is made off of the horizon of the black hole. but once the black hole is gone. no more radiation (which didn't have data anyway) and no more horizon to map the holograph off of. So wouldn't the paradox still exist?

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Il Drago Museveni Il

but... Holographic representation is what we are using because hawking radiation doesn't carry any data. So to solve the paradox the holographic representation is made off of the horizon of the black hole. but once the black hole is gone. no more radiation (which didn't have data anyway) and no more horizon to map the holograph off of. So wouldn't the paradox still exist?

Well, if we work with a simple example, let's consider a photon falling into a black hole. This photon will be travelling in some direction, have some energy. An emitted photon, chosen at random, will tell me nothing about the absorbed photon. If, however, I look at all the emitted photons, I will be able to tell where the absorbed photon was and how much energy it had because its presence has altered the distribution of all emitted photons. So, you get to preserve the information regarding the state of the absorbed photon, but not directly from another photon of Hawking radiation. Thus, the Hawking radiation is still random, but the distribution of Hawking radiation is non-random and contains all the information about the absorbed photon.

[Il Drago Museveni Il]

Doubtful Dreamer

Il Drago Museveni Il

but... Holographic representation is what we are using because hawking radiation doesn't carry any data. So to solve the paradox the holographic representation is made off of the horizon of the black hole. but once the black hole is gone. no more radiation (which didn't have data anyway) and no more horizon to map the holograph off of. So wouldn't the paradox still exist?

Well, if we work with a simple example, let's consider a photon falling into a black hole. This photon will be travelling in some direction, have some energy. An emitted photon, chosen at random, will tell me nothing about the absorbed photon. If, however, I look at all the emitted photons, I will be able to tell where the absorbed photon was and how much energy it had because its presence has altered the distribution of all emitted photons. So, you get to preserve the information regarding the state of the absorbed photon, but not directly from another photon of Hawking radiation. Thus, the Hawking radiation is still random, but the distribution of Hawking radiation is non-random and contains all the information about the absorbed photon.

Okay that makes sense. I'm not Schooled up on all this all I know I've learned randomly or pieced together. So that actually helped me understand it alot.

[xAzurestormx]

Well, I'm not an Atheist, but since the universe is still flying outwards and has no indications of collapsing back in on itself due to dark matter and dark energy further propelling things outwards, a cyclic model of contraction and expansion could not be true, and if that's not true I don't think science has any sort of explanation for it.

Of course this is assuming that one thing I watched was right about the universe not showing any signs of ever contracting... google~~


Also I guess since science has no answers for it I'm going to go wiiiith... well God, since from the looks of it in the midst of nothingness, an explosion of somethings suddenly happened, in direct violation of the law of conservation of matter, and since a law such as that was broken, if something can come out of nothing, and there's no possible way for us to make something out of nothing, it makes me believe that there must be something beyond human understanding doing this.

Now, what exactly God is, is another matter entirely.

but I do think it is intelligent.

[Yasano]

Well the Big Bang was caused by a supernova apparently so that means maybe there was another solar system....probably just like ours..... probably with a previous living species that got blown to s**t by the supernova. A possibility if anything. :3


Or we can go with what seems to be the truth and accepted by millions of idiots.

" The Lord God clapped his hands and we just MAGIC'D up outta a little miracle. "

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Yasano

Well the Big Bang was caused by a supernova apparently...

Source?

[Doubtful Dreamer]

xAzurestormx

Also I guess since science has no answers for it I'm going to go wiiiith... well God, since from the looks of it in the midst of nothingness, an explosion of somethings suddenly happened, in direct violation of the law of conservation of matter, and since a law such as that was broken, if something can come out of nothing, and there's no possible way for us to make something out of nothing, it makes me believe that there must be something beyond human understanding doing this.

Here is a rather important thing in this line of reasoning: you are assuming that the laws of the universe in its current state apply when the universe was in a different state or when it did not exist at all. This assumption does not make much sense, or rather it makes "sense" in that it is what we intuitively expect, but it does not make sense in that there is no reason to believe this to be true when our physical intuition has been failing us for the last 100 years or so of advances in the the field of physics.

Yasano

Well the Big Bang was caused by a supernova apparently so that means maybe there was another solar system....probably just like ours..... probably with a previous living species that got blown to s**t by the supernova. A possibility if anything. :3

I think you are confusing the big bang with the formation of second and third generation stars. Furthermore, the previous star system would have been radically different from ours due to a very different chemical make-up due to a lack of heavier elements formed during the supernova event.

[xAzurestormx]

Doubtful Dreamer

xAzurestormx

Also I guess since science has no answers for it I'm going to go wiiiith... well God, since from the looks of it in the midst of nothingness, an explosion of somethings suddenly happened, in direct violation of the law of conservation of matter, and since a law such as that was broken, if something can come out of nothing, and there's no possible way for us to make something out of nothing, it makes me believe that there must be something beyond human understanding doing this.

Here is a rather important thing in this line of reasoning: you are assuming that the laws of the universe in its current state apply when the universe was in a different state or when it did not exist at all. This assumption does not make much sense, or rather it makes "sense" in that it is what we intuitively expect, but it does not make sense in that there is no reason to believe this to be true when our physical intuition has been failing us for the last 100 years or so of advances in the the field of physics.

Well this is probably true, but I just don't see why the universe would have different rules and then suddenly switch for no reason, or just suddenly start to exist out of nowhere.

I don't see how physical matter would alter the whole entire rule set of the universe, unless matter could have turned out differently after the big bang to form something else... unless it did and that's what dark matter & energy are?

wait is physics solely based on what matter does or is matter affected by the inherent qualities of the universe?

idk it's all pretty confusing. But in any case if the universe is flying outwards and shows no signs of contracting that leads me to believe this is the first time it has happened and a cyclic model is wrong...

well unless I read that wrong... I forgot where I read it, but I think it was current.

[Sailor Loveless]

Before the big bang? Well I don't know. But I am going to assume there was something there to begin with. What that was, I have no idea. I just hear things. But whenever I bother to start sourcing theories, I find they are just that... theories. I guess the quest for knowledge continues.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

xAzurestormx

Well this is probably true, but I just don't see why the universe would have different rules and then suddenly switch for no reason, or just suddenly start to exist out of nowhere.

For the first, there are plenty of processes which could account for a spontaneous decay event resulting in a fundamental change in the behavior of the universe. For the second, if nothing exists, then there are no rules to violate by the spontaneous formation of something.

Quote:

I don't see how physical matter would alter the whole entire rule set of the universe, unless matter could have turned out differently after the big bang to form something else... unless it did and that's what dark matter & energy are?

I am uncertain where you are going with this...

Quote:

wait is physics solely based on what matter does or is matter affected by the inherent qualities of the universe?

Physics studies the most basic interactions that occur between "things". From this, we get the fundamental forces, what stuff is made of, etc. Additionally, we find many physical constants which "just are." If these constants were different, then everything else would also be radically different.

Quote:

idk it's all pretty confusing. But in any case if the universe is flying outwards and shows no signs of contracting that leads me to believe this is the first time it has happened and a cyclic model is wrong...

well unless I read that wrong... I forgot where I read it, but I think it was current.

There is an idea called conformal remapping, but I don't know much about it and it is fairly recent from what I have seen. However, there is still no need for a cyclic universe unless unsupportable assumptions are made.

[Sneaker Pimps]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's south of the South Pole.

I don't believe in the big bang theory.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Sneaker Pimps

Pseudo-Onkelos

Asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's south of the South Pole.

I don't believe in the big bang theory.

If you're not an atheist, this shouldn't concern you. If you don't believe in the Big Bang theory, then you're wasting your time quoting me because it's quite clear this thread is asking atheists what was before the Big Bang.

[--Real Pinkamena Pie--]

that's just it. there wasn't.

you can't quite say that there was nothing, because nothing is something, too.

there simply wasn't.

there was no existence. there was no non-existence.

It was a perfect void. a blank slate. in a way, nothing existed, but at the same time everything did. it was just very, very, very, very, veeeerrrrrryyyyy tiny and compacted. like a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic particle. everything was in a nice little cycle, but then something went wrong and caused an explosion that created.

just created. everything. it created creation. it created existence, physical laws, planets, galaxies, stars, black holes, empty space. everything.


BUUUUUUUUUT, as everybody over the age of three knows, explosions do not last forever. they are very brief. the larger the explosion, the longer it lasts before all of the energy dissipates. this is where the "our universe is expanding" thing comes in.

it is expanding, but it won't always be expanding. eventually, it will stop, and the universe will slowly disappear back into the ultimate void.


of course, it'll take thousands of quadrillions of quadrillions of years for this to happen, and there's no way humans will be alive anymore. the entire planet will probably be gone, too, and all the stars will have burned out.

...... well, that's just my theory, fueled by chocolate and ICP's "Miracles" on infinite loop.

[marshmallowcreampie]

The New Wineskin

Requiem in Mortis

Only theory I'm willing to accept is that there was another Universe prior to ours that collapsed on itself.

Well, to be fair, this is called the Expansion-Contraction Theory, which is an extension of the Big Bang Theory, claiming that universes go into a never-ending cycle of expansion and contraction into and out-of themselves.

Sounds cool. Tell me more.