Big Bang Questions - Not a Religious Post

years ago a scientist friend of mine and I were discussing this general topic and he asked for my thoughts, my response was, " we're much smaller than we realize, our entire universe is just a drop in someone else's ocean that's as deeply as I take it

yes,.... a lot like Whoville.

GA

I am also no expert but I do believe that you have explained it as well as anyone could, in an understandable manner....! Thanks.

And on the 7th day, she rested...

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and she wants us to be happy" Ben Franklin.

• #1 not a religious post (differing from a relationship of being)
• (presuming there was a) …the big bang? Nothing (of our perception of "things")
• (presuming) a first "thing"-of-not … did explode?
• (seemed perception) …"matter" (for discourse) …(presuming) … an explosion?
• (presumed) …it exploded?
• (judgment):

• --- … "if" (exploded, presumption) is sort'a railroading thinking of the 'track' to a "some previous" existence of energy or "matter" (then) … "of a different universe format?"

Does not all the above only lead to formatting the hard-thought-drive again, to rid the presumptiveness required for human understanding?

2 fun to consider! - in an attempt to take no presumption in hand -

Words of one of witty invention of a respected, over 100 working-patent holder, a late Hans Ernst, ASME speaker and Metallurgical Professor Emeritus:

"…look for the design in everything." (presumption leading to knowledge/scientia, beyond theory)

2) Cover of time magazine had a tiny "point" depicted just in front of the "<" drawing of an expanding 'big bang' theory.

3) historically, not religiously, of over 5500 found documents prior to ~140 AD it is written in some of the documents the (Greek) Proto (first point) of creation is Yeshua/Jesus…

4) About all of the any theories of "parallel", "quantum's", "string's", "energy", "time (which does not exist at all, I have reason to believe), "universe(s)", "infinites" , … and the like: "aliens placed us here" theories… as Nobel prize winner declared the DNA found on Earth "was placed here… did not come from Earth" … one can always ask: … and where'd that come from?

5) -interesting enough, how the universe, viewed/imagined of a few people (Hans E. observed, as if placed- "Let there be…" in a growing motion) - from other points, too, also "…appears like the universal components don't quite collectively 'spin-out' or 'blow-out' from just a single beginning point…", …and yet are by one currently accepted (limited of our smallness) viewing are universally still reported as accelerating.

SEE Lyn #7 , or NASA 'pictures of the day, week, month'

A1) Time did not exist, so the question is meaningless.

A2) Just be grateful that it did.

A3) See Q2.

A4) See Q2.

A5) Because time did not exist before the Big Bang, it doesn't matter.

"A1) Time did not exist, so the question is meaningless."

Open to your

interesting prejudgment, eh? sounds a bit too religious, though: "the question is meaningless"

Spock knows

Theory, if revelation does not exist, and unbelief is the religion, I think.

I've long been a fan of astrophysicist Roger Penrose who, in addition to his fundamental work on cosmology, also worked with the famous artist M C Escher.

I read Penrose's latest book on cosmology, where he examines the issues of origins and endings from the aspect of Entropy. He sees the universe as cyclic, and thus perhaps infinitely old.

Here is the Wikipedia discussion of the ideas in the book.

"An Earlier Universe

In 2010, Penrose reported possible evidence, based on concentric circles found in WMAP data of the CMB sky, of an earlier universe existing before the Big Bang of our own present universe. He mentions this evidence in the epilog of his 2010 book Cycles of Time, a book in which he presents his reasons, to do with Einstein's field equations, the Weyl curvature C, and the Weyl curvature hypothesis, that the transition at the big bang could have been smooth enough for a previous universe to survive it. He made several conjectures about C and the WCH, some of which were subsequently proved by others, and the smoothness is real. In simple terms, he believes that the singularity in Einstein's field equation at the big bang is only an apparent singularity, similar to the well known apparent singularity at the Event horizon of a Black hole. The latter singularity can be removed by a change of coordinate system, and Penrose proposes a different change of coordinate system that will remove the singularity at the big bang. This was a daring step, relying on certain conjectures being proved, but these have subsequently been proved. One implication of this is that the major events at the big bang can be understood without unifying General relativity and quantum mechanics, and therefore we are not necessarily constrained by the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which messes up time.

In more recent evidence of an earlier universe, the European Spaces Agency's space probe Planck, which now has the most detailed and precise data on anisotropies in the CMB has detected a large hole, which suggests the imprint of a previous universe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose

I always thought that people were afraid or unable to understand the infinite. I have thought about this many times (but have not studied the great thinkers enough). From what I have learned and thought, I believe that the universe is infinite.

If the universe is infinite and what we can see of it is within the realm of the 'big bang' but beyond that influence, farther than we can observe is more universe, more big bangs that happened and happen constantly. Our big bang just happened to set us up to have a planet that we evolved on and now observe everything we can. Given enough time we will see the influence of other big bangs and more of the universe.

As for where did it come from, it was always there just in another form. I visualize a black hole as a place of almost infinite gravity, perhaps it is a hole in the univers to something else but it's effect here is a location of intense gravity so dense that light cannot escape. This makes me think that particles accelerating toward the singularity are moving at close to or at the speed of light.

Einstein thought that as you approach the speed of light time slows down. I saw a documentary where Hawking spoke about this. He said (I think i remember it right) that to an observer watching someone else accelerate to near the speed of light, they would simply fall faster and faster toward the singularity until they could no longer be observed. But to the traveller, the closer they got to the singularity and the faster they went time would slow down, if they could see the people watching them they would appear to slow until they were not moving. Due to E=mC², I think that as you approach C you become the square root of E/m. but with the complication of the dense gravity time dilation and speed time dilation you would almost never make it to the singularity.

I wonder if the big bang is not what happens when a section of the universe gets old enough and has one big singularity that has aborbed all the matter in it's region, and all the other smaller singularities until finally enough matter has been converted to energy and it hits a critical limit and 'bangs' on a big scale.

Drew K

Now your touching off of string theory.... where if you picture this universe as a bubble, and a parallel universe which is another bubble is slightly different where one of the CR4 users is 'Del the Dog', named not because of his bounding soccer (football) abilities, but named because he likes to chase cars ...............

its a matter of variations of the number of parallel universes there are.......

Does it have to be a bubble? Why can't it be visualized as a space that can be cut as an infinite plane of stretchy material where gravity wells make a depression based upon density. The more you zoom out the more you can see the influence of solar systems as one gravity well instead of individual planatary wells then galaxies then when zoomed way way out you see the universe that we see as one big well and other 'universe' sized wells farther away. When one goes critical, the well inverts and pukes it's energy back into slower moving matter that begins to collect into galaxies and stars.

Drew K

When it comes down to it,.......... it can be anything you want.......

this is a personal view....and looking back, it was interesting that I would even a dreamed of this.... I could not fathom on just how big the universe was..........when I was a kid...... 6,7 or 8 years old can't quite remember...... this really bothered me..... for a 6 year old.......

I had asked my parents told my about it, Can't recall exactly how I explained it to them......and told them that I think the universe is how I looked at it as a picture frame, and its within a picture frame, within a picture frame......... infinitely....... I think I got the idea from watching TV with the camera viewing a TV where you have a TV within a TV, within a TV.......

and where'd that come from?

1. what existed one second before the big bang? nothing?

A: Some redneck saying, "Hey watch me light this."

2. why did nothing explode?

A: Stuff made by rednecks with the intention to have them blow up don't always work the way they intended.

3. where did all the matter in the universe come from? an explosion?

A: My wife was there. She can make a big something out of nothing at will.

4. did this matter exist before it exploded?

A: No. But she thought the place was dirty and needed fussing about anyway.

5. if so, then the big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of a different universe format?

A: Same format but we are running on service pack 2 now.

tcmtech,

Your answer to the Q no.3 indicates you have a large tank full of SENSE OF HUMOR. I like it.

I think we will not be able to define what the universe was like at time -1 sec. First we have to define nothing from a physicist's point of view. Imagine a universe void of anything, time, particles, no heat, no cold, an empty void. There would be no light as even being able to see a star would mean a photon has entered that space. No neutinos just nothing. Can we create a simple void in say a volume of any size? As far as I know, the answer is no. And if we somehow were able to create a complete void would that lead to a new big bang? What a weapon that would be. My head is hurting, crap I think I found a void.

"Nothing" is a supposition.

There was never "nothing". Otherwise, you could never have "something".

Without "something", you could never have "anything".

Anything is better than a fur ball. Thank God for that!

Just a thought: What if it wasn't a "Bang" so to speak, but a phase-change? Given sufficient time, and the constant flux of quantum energy changes, a stable configuration of a previous, infinite entropy universe went through a phase change?

It is also possible that in this previous universe a sufficient mass, (i.e. super massive black holes colliding) triggered this phase change.

Sufficient energy in a small enough space can cause a reshuffling of quantum laws and begin a phase change. All matter and energy in contact with the threshold of this phase change would also be changed into the new configuration.

It might add to the explanation of the expansion theories.

Just a thought.

Dragon

The universe has an infinitely small plughole somewhere. One day the universe will collapse in on itself and disappear down this plughole, where it will emerge into another space which will expand to form a new universe, using the same material that was in the previous universe.This has always happened and will continue to do so. Chances are you may have another opportunity to live a life again. Don't stuff up next time!

Hi 1capybara.

1. what existed one second before the big bang? nothing?

Noone knows for sure. Mayne it was "nothing" or "something".

2. why did nothing explode?

Maybe the Big Bang was a kind of quantum fluctuation of "nothing" but a very big one. So big that a whole universe was created.

3. where did all the matter in the universe come from? an explosion?

Yes, it came from an explosion. The question is what caused this explosion in a first place.

4. did this matter exist before it exploded?

This is a possibility. Probably all the matter (in fact the energy which corresponds to this matter) and energy of our universe pre-existed in another universe. And this "other" universe collapsed creating (through the Big Bang) our universe.

5. if so, then the big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of a different universe format?

Yes, probably, our universe is the "child" (or one of the "children") of another "mother" universe. There is the Multiverse theory which claims that -probably- universes are created from other universes through the creation of black holes.

The pre-Big-Bang physics (which led to the Big Bang and the creation of our universe) is absolutely unknown and scientists can do nothing more than speculations.

if 2 supermassive black holes collided, motion implies speed (mph or kph) which implies time. so "supermassive black hole collision" is antithetical with the idea that "time didnt exist."

time is just a dimension with positive or negative numbers. but if thats the case, do other dimensions have positive and negative numbers? can we build a house (or a boat) of negative size?

You mean you don't. Wow, it must be wonderful on the other side of this looking glass.

Thomas Young's double-slit experiment...intriguing proof of subatomic intelligence beyond our understanding?

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html

"It is important to note that the superposition of possibilities only occurs before the entity is observed. Once an observation is made (a position is measured, a mass is determined, a velocity is detected) then the superposition converts to an actual. Or, in quantum language, we say the wave function has collapsed.

The collapse of the wave function by observation is a transition from the many to the one, from possibility to actuality. The identity and existence of a quantum entities are bound up with its overall environment (this is called contextualism). Like homonyms, words that depend on the context in which they are used, quantum reality shifts its nature according to its surroundings.

In the macroscopic world ruled by classical physics, things are what they are. In the microscopic world ruled by quantum physics, there is an existential dialogue among the particle, its surroundings and the person studying it."

Hard not to believe there is a creative intelligence underlying the totality of things.

From what I understand,

When your talking about observation..... that in itself changes the outcome........

The experimental evidence thus far does suggest that mere observation has an effect on particle behavior.

It is an extraordinarily intriguing phenomenon....that merely "watching" the experiment changes the outcome.

Can't help but broaden the scope of thought to question, and for myself at last to conclude, that it is hard not to believe there is a creative intelligence underlying the totality of the universe and everything in it....or if it is infinite, can infinity be "it", being that "it" suggests finitude?

a 'proto' or first point, from where any 'thing' to theorize about existed or came before...

Seems "no man" with puny reasoning, relatively or absolutely, can ever see what has "gone (on) before", ... and, eh Spoc?

"in the beginning was nothing and it exploded."

No, there was a "ball" of high density and small size. The size varies with the version of the BBT. The discovery of the Higgs Boson tells scientists that they are on the right track.

1. The "ball" existed.

2. The ball is not nothing

3. It came from the "ball".

4. The ball existed before it expanded.

5. There is much speculation about that

Del was right. The highest density hair ball ever conceived started it all. The catnip is on me.

From purely my own mind (And I'm not saying my mind is pure):

A black hole is currently seen as a "suction device" for all approaching it, where the particles travel at - or approaching - light speed. There is an assumption that it is of infinite mass and infinite density.

The particles at the time of the "Big Bang" were travelling at - or approaching - the speed of light, emerging from a point of infinite mass and infinite density.

Did the universe we know start from the back end of a black hole? Are black holes the Twisters of Time?

Has anyone else noticed the similarities between a solar system and an atom? We could be sitting on an electron!

A black hole is currently seen as a "suction device" for all approaching it, where the particles travel at - or approaching - light speed. There is an assumption that it is of infinite mass and infinite density.

Black holes are a vast variety of masses. Ones at the center of galaxies can be millions of solar masses, but not infinite. The event horizon is determined by the mass.

1. what existed one second before the big bang?
I think of it as the "Exoverse", meaning everything that is NOT in our observable "universe".
2. why did nothing explode?
It did. My guess is that a huge quantum vacuum formed in the Exoverse (much like a rogue wave in our oceans), containing enough energy to explode.
3. where did all the matter in the universe come from?
All matter came from the energy that caused the explosion (E = mcc)
4. did this matter exist before it exploded?
No. It was converted from energy.
5. if so, then the big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of a different universe format?
It was the beginning of OUR universe. I am guessing that the so called "dark matter" and "dark energy" are evidence of the original "exoverse", and that we don't know how to observe it (we may never; maybe the physics there are completely different from our own).

Easy answer: http://bit.ly/1bhnPFp

Hard answer: I refuse to believe I am the direct descendant of exploding space dust. Who created the dust? Yet I also refuse to believe I am the descendant of the original mating pair, and subsequent mating pairs on the ark during the great do-over. Who created God? Man will never possess the cognitive ability to comprehend the origins of the universe.

I am not saying that you or anyone else must believe anything at all. We should respect the beliefs of others. This includes the religious respecting the beliefs of scientists, particularly cosmologists. We all have a right to our beliefs. (I'm not saying that you, Delmar, crossed the line of imposing your beliefs on anyone. I'm hoping to stop this tangent before it starts.)

Agreed Redfred. We all can learn from others beliefs whether they are technical or spiritual. Learning from the wisdom of other people (much smarter than me) has made me become more spiritual, but maybe less religious. The two aren't necessarily connected.

There will always be a question that can't be answered. Your link led to a link where Hawking (an atheist) says that the law of gravity led to the big bang. Who does he think created the law of gravity? Hawking's theories keep changing. I think he's over the hill.

You could say only energy existed before the Big Bang.

If we take Force=Mass x Acceleration, and E = Mass x C^2, and re-write acceleration as Distance/Time^2, and the speed of light as Distance/Time, we can combine both formulas to produce Force=E/D (the time units cancel out)

D could be the diameter of our universe.

From which it can be seen that the force approaches infinity as the diameter approaches zero - similar to a singularity of a black hole.

It is easy to imagine that at some stage the force being so great something will burst.

Meanwhile, this diameter D, that appears to change to an observer outside D, is linked to it's own time by the speed of light where the ratio D/T remains constant, such that those inside D see no change in the speed of light or time itself, other than a manifestation of an apparent change in distance.

The red shift of distant galaxies could be due to time being of shorter intervals billions of years ago when the D of our universe was much smaller.

The Force we feel today as gravity could be due to acceleration caused by the change in time units.

It needs some new maths. Some experts need to look at the maths of how we divide and multiply by values near-zero and near-infinity.

I think

#5......It hit the debt ceiling.

Just don't get the church involved............ They have a history of tendencies of protecting their organization first by hamstringing science as an example, and preaching the good word second.

42.

Just wanting to throw my 2 cents in

I'm sure you find several competing theories out there. I for one will state up front that I'm a believer of the infinite universe theorem. There is no beginning or end to the universe as it is infinite in all direction and has always been. There are some serious valid arguments against this though such as the expansion of the universe. Logically if it is expanding it is expanding from somewhere right?

A lot of people get hung up on the values of an infinite. You can have infinites of that are larger than others. Example: Our integer system is an infinite system as 1, 2, 3, 4 ... goes on forever. However if you count to the second decimal place of each integer such as 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 ..... 3.76, 3.77, 3.78 ..... it is still infinite but a larger infinite.

This being said I do not disagree that space is expanding as general relativity shows that expanding space in a unidirectional sense forces time to flow in the same unidirectional rate that is consistent with the expansion. I just believe that it is expanding to a larger infinite.

The big bang or the bubble universe theories have too many holes. One could always ask "what is on the outside of that then" Trust me when I say it isn't turtles all the way down.

1.One second before the Big Bang: was another universe.

2. It didn't explode, it was a phase change.

3. The matter was already here. Just in a different form.

4. Yes, but at a different atomic nutation, under different laws.

5. The previous format had reached it's entropic end.