|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:26 pm
Without religion, can anybody say what was before the Big Bang?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:36 pm
ANTON_T3H_FOXX Without religion, can anybody say what was before the Big Bang? Sort of. According to the general theory of relativity, "before the big bang" is physically meaningless. It's more than just saying there was nothing--the question is contradictory under GTR interpretation. It's a bit like asking "can anybody say what happened to that married bachelor?" There is a contradiction implicit in the question. The reason for this is a bit harder to understand. According to GTR, there is a global singularity at the big bang, meaning that there is no spacetime there. Since there is no time, "before" becomes meaningless, as in "what time was it before there was time?" The key point is that time itself extends only a finite amount into the past. You're taking Algebra I, right? Look up the concept of intervals on the real number line if you haven't covered them already. Say time t is like the open interval (0,+∞). (Or, if closed-universe models are correct, (0,1)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:12 pm
VorpalNeko ANTON_T3H_FOXX Without religion, can anybody say what was before the Big Bang? Sort of. According to the general theory of relativity, "before the big bang" is physically meaningless. It's more than just saying there was nothing--the question is contradictory under GTR interpretation. It's a bit like asking "can anybody say what happened to that married bachelor?" There is a contradiction implicit in the question. The reason for this is a bit harder to understand. According to GTR, there is a global singularity at the big bang, meaning that there is no spacetime there. Since there is no time, "before" becomes meaningless, as in "what time was it before there was time?" The key point is that time itself extends only a finite amount into the past. You're taking Algebra I, right? Look up the concept of intervals on the real number line if you haven't covered them already. Say time t is like the open interval (0,+∞). (Or, if closed-universe models are correct, (0,1)). Have you heard of the Big Crunch theory? Could it be possible to have a cycle af multiple Bangs and Crunches?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Speaking of elementary algebra, if you want to understand the basics of special theory of relativity, or at least relativistic kinematics, all you you really have to understand is the Pythagorean theorem/distance formula and how to solve linear systems, although an understanding of complex numbers and basic matrix operations would certainly help. None of those concepts is beyond Algebra II under the USA system.
It always amazes me how many people butcher basic STR, such as the incessant incredulity at the so-called twin paradox, et cetera. There isn't anything there a high-school freshman shouldn't be able to understand. (The full STR, including relativistic dynamics, however, is another matter.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:20 pm
ANTON_T3H_FOXX Have you heard of the Big Crunch theory? Yes. That is the positive-curvature ("closed universe") FRW model I mentioned earlier. ANTON_T3H_FOXX Could it be possible to have a cycle af multiple Bangs and Crunches? Taking the positive-curvature FRW metric (a model for this scenario) and solving for the proper motion distance (roughly, "the size of the universe") gives something periodic, yes. However, concluding that the universe "cycles" is a bit forced, since it involves 'crossing' a global singularity. It's possible, but I don't find it convincing for that reason. And that's even assuming that the universe has positive curvature in the first place (observational evidence is against that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:25 pm
VorpalNeko ANTON_T3H_FOXX Have you heard of the Big Crunch theory? Yes. That is the positive-curvature ("closed universe") FRW model I mentioned earlier. ANTON_T3H_FOXX Could it be possible to have a cycle af multiple Bangs and Crunches? Taking the positive-curvature FRW metric (a model for this scenario) and solving for the proper motion distance (roughly, "the size of the universe") gives something periodic, yes. However, concluding that the universe "cycles" is a bit forced, since it involves 'crossing' a global singularity. It's possible, but I don't find it convincing for that reason. And that's even assuming that the universe has positive curvature in the first place (observational evidence is against that). Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:42 am
There was most likely something before the big bang, there has to be something around at anypoint in time even before time itself. Remember, something can't come from nothing. So whatever was there is probably in consequencial since we have no evidence that there only one big bang or mulitiple near simultaneos. Theory is peachy, and I like to think that the big bang happened after all of the latent space matter had culminated to one center, or it could've clumped together in mulitiple centers as stars do even now, then simply super heated into a massive star(s) before supernoving. The force of such a reaction is, inmeasurable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 7:01 am
Before the big bang came, well, the potential field described by inflationary theory. Or, at least, this is the presently held view of things as it has been taught to me.
As for a cyclic universe using the big crunch theory, recent observations show that the universe will not collapse back upon itself (what with the expansion accelerating and all).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:18 pm
ZuraiBarusk There was most likely something before the big bang, there has to be something around at anypoint in time even before time itself. There is no logical reason why that should be so. ZuraiBarusk Remember, something can't come from nothing. Perhaps. Assuming that is the case, please explain how something comes from nothing in the relativistic Big Bang scenario. At all times t, the universe exists. There is no time in which it does not. Ergo, there is no point in time during which something comes from nothing. Beyond_Oblivion Before the big bang came, well, the potential field described by inflationary theory. Or, at least, this is the presently held view of things as it has been taught to me. To clarify, inflationary theory does not preserve the classical big bang picture in that it posits an eternity of bubble-like expansions. The larger background is forever expanding, so the universe has existed indefinitely into the past under this view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 10:56 pm
A singularity that was the size of a gold ball, not much else.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 12:48 am
NightPredator11 A singularity that was the size of a gold ball, not much else..... ...golf ball you mean? That's a pretty big singularity there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 10:39 am
We know something cannot come from nothing.
But nonexistence=/=nothing. Thus, can something come from a nonexistent state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:11 am
I've read that the "Parallel Worlds" interpretation says that our universe came into existance when two parallel worlds collided. This is an interesting explaination, not that the interpretation carries with it much credibility, but there are several theories out there about why the big bang occured. I've also heard that the universe was created out of 'supersymmetry' breaking. Dont' know how truthful this is, but it's according to a string theorist. Dr. Michio Kaku says that there used to exist a 10 dimensional space, but that the sypersymmetry was unstable, and thus 4 dimensions broke off from the 10, and expanded, while the other 6 dimensions curled up.
it's a little vague. elaborations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:52 pm
It's more like when you take two geometic planes, and cross them, you get a line.
Our universe is the intersection of two four dimentional universes, or something.
Either that, or you mean that the enegry from two branes colliding created a new one between them, to keep them from going boom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 7:28 pm
Vannak It's more like when you take two geometic planes, and cross them, you get a line. Our universe is the intersection of two four dimentional universes, or something. Either that, or you mean that the enegry from two branes colliding created a new one between them, to keep them from going boom! I think I was referring to the latter explaination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
