Big Bang? Maybe not. It may be it's impossible to know.

[disappoint]

I've never seen anything on the critical question - what was before the big bang?

The tiny singularity.

 

[piasabird]

To the uninformed I will try to explain the time paradox of astro-physics. As light travels it takes time to get from point A to Point B. The further away an object is in space, the longer it takes for that light to reach the earth or the Hubble Telescope or other telescopes. So the Hubble Telescope, because it can zoom in on object many lightyears away, is actually looking back in time. I think the real question is how far back in time is a really powerful telescope cabable of looking. Then another question of the Big Bang Theory should be when did the big bang occur? Does every galaxy have its own big bang or is there a Center of the Universe and where is that center?

My point is we are not capale of answering these questions at this time. However, no matter how far back in time all we can see is objects forming, and more distant stars out in the distance that we cant quite focus on. We obviously need some better technology to explore what is really going on.

I tried to stick to scientific facts based on observations.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe the best way to research the universe is to just say the universe just is and start from there. Making thes gigantic leaps of theory and supposition is just madness. The universe is a very vast place. We can not even define the universe at this point. We are still contmplating sending men to Mars.

 

[Paul98]

To the uninformed I will try to explain the time paradox of astro-physics. As light travels it takes time to get from point A to Point B. The further away an object is in space, the longer it takes for that light to reach the earth or the Hubble Telescope or other telescopes. So the Hubble Telescope, because it can zoom in on object many lightyears away, is actually looking back in time. I think the real question is how far back in time is a really powerful telescope cabable of looking. Then another question of the Big Bang Theory should be when did the big bang occur? Does every galaxy have its own big bang or is there a Center of the Universe and where is that center?

where is a paradox, everyone knows that the farther away you look the farther back in time you are looking. What's the problem with that? That being said we can only look back as far as the universe existed well actually the CMB.

The big bang happened everywhere, there is no center of the universe. This is why we see what we do. Every galaxy is part of the universe, so it's going to be the same big bang.

My point is we are not capale of answering these questions at this time. However, no matter how far back in time all we can see is objects forming, and more distant stars out in the distance that we cant quite focus on. We obviously need some better technology to explore what is really going on.

I tried to stick to scientific facts based on observations.

As you can see above we have answered these questions, if you want to understand you can learn about it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've never seen anything on the critical question - what was before the big bang?

What lies to the north of the North Pole?

 

[DaveSimmons]

To the uninformed I will try to explain the time paradox of astro-physics. As light travels it takes time to get from point A to Point B.

Is thunder a time paradox too? The farther away you are from it, the longer ago it happened.

Every lightning strike shreds the space-time continuum into confetti?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What lies to the north of the North Pole?

Since Craig doesn't like me he has me blocked so others will have to put up with my responses

Your response demonstrates that some questions have no meaning, but why it would be in this case is that space and time were created at the same moment. You couldn't move before there was distance and you can't have a time before time.

That doesn't mean that time didn't exist at all anywhere (in the largest possible context), but if there are other universes they are utterly removed from us and there is as far as we know no "master clock" of the multiverse.

 

[Craig234]

What lies to the north of the North Pole?

False analogy.

 

[McWatt]

Maybe inflatable marshmallows created the universe and then disappeared in 800 AD after using flashlights to give the illusion of redshift for distant objects. Or maybe the OP should go look up Russell's Teapot on Wikipedia.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

False analogy.

No, it most certainly is not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your response demonstrates that some questions have no meaning, but why it would be in this case is that space and time were created at the same moment. You couldn't move before there was distance and you can't have a time before time.

That doesn't mean that time didn't exist at all anywhere (in the largest possible context), but if there are other universes they are utterly removed from us and there is as far as we know no "master clock" of the multiverse.

What we must remember is that the 4 dimensions of spacetime are not necessarily the totality of the universe's dimensionality. While we may have an origin for spacetime in our history, that doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't existing translations of mass-energy along non-spatiotemporal dimensions figuratively "perpendicular" to spacetime.

 

[beginner99]

I've never seen anything on the critical question - what was before the big bang?

It's irrelevant to science because the definition of the big bang itself makes it impossible to ever scientifically answer that question. hence it is irrelevant to the discussion.

besides that the total energy of the universe is 0 because gravity is negative. Quantum mechanics allow the spontaneous appearance of particles from empty space. I guess you see were this is going but physics completely allows that something gets generated out of nothing...like a full universe?

 

[Retro Rob]

It's irrelevant to science because the definition of the big bang itself makes it impossible to ever scientifically answer that question. hence it is irrelevant to the discussion.

besides that the total energy of the universe is 0 because gravity is negative. Quantum mechanics allow the spontaneous appearance of particles from empty space. I guess you see were this is going but physics completely allows that something gets generated out of nothing...like a full universe?

It sounds like you're saying that if science can't answer a question, its unanswerable, and you can throw complex math at it to make answering it moot.

You're basically giving up, or looking for an answer which fit something you already want to believe.

Just sayin, that's what it sounds like.

 

[Paul98]

It's irrelevant to science because the definition of the big bang itself makes it impossible to ever scientifically answer that question. hence it is irrelevant to the discussion.

besides that the total energy of the universe is 0 because gravity is negative. Quantum mechanics allow the spontaneous appearance of particles from empty space. I guess you see were this is going but physics completely allows that something gets generated out of nothing...like a full universe?

impossible is a strong word, we don't know now, may never know. Yet there are already people working on what happened before the big bang, and are testable through observations we make in the universe.

 

[piasabird]

The starting point for science is I dont know. At this point in time, with our current technology it is impossible to know how the universe originated. What we should be working on is technology that would help us to test out some theories. However, when people consider paying for a project to send Men to mars many people think the money could be better spent. However, man's Endeavour to overcome the impossible tasks of space travel could lead to a better understanding and benefits of technological breakthroughs. So I say waste some money on space travel if you really want to overcome the impossible. From earth we can only learn so much.

We keep learning new things. For instance there was just an article published about coating glass with a couple of different coatings and then if you apply a current, you can block sunlight or infrafed radiation on command. Every little thing we learn is like adding another piece to the puzzle.

We have yet to learn and account for what is going on in photosynthesis. Plants create more power for growth than we can account for. There seems to be something going on in plants that is more powerful than just converting sunlight. If we understood it and could harness it we could make a better solar pannel.

All these things are pieces to puzzles. So this seems to suggest we need to spend even more on research. It is just too easy to keep using gasoline when the next big discovery could be just around the corner. Man needs obstacles to overcome to make improvements.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It sounds like you're saying that if science can't answer a question, its unanswerable, and you can throw complex math at it to make answering it moot.

You're basically giving up, or looking for an answer which fit something you already want to believe.

Just sayin, that's what it sounds like.

So you're saying we shouldn't stop searching for the West Pole?

 

[Retro Rob]

So you're saying we shouldn't stop searching for the West Pole?

Are you giving up by simply using math to say there was nothing before the big bang?

How would you know if there wasn't anything?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you giving up by simply using math to say there was nothing before the big bang?

The big bang is math. It's math that describes a singularity. It is the nature of the big bang singularity that makes the notion of "before the big bang" meaningless.

How would you know if there wasn't anything?

Wasn't anything where? Spacetime only has meaning in the future of the big bang singularity.

 

[Retro Rob]

The big bang is math. It's math that describes a singularity. It is the nature of the big bang singularity that makes the notion of "before the big bang" meaningless.


Wasn't anything where? Spacetime only has meaning in the future of the big bang singularity.

Yes or no:

It had no beginning?

 

[Paul98]

The starting point for science is I dont know. At this point in time, with our current technology it is impossible to know how the universe originated. What we should be working on is technology that would help us to test out some theories. However, when people consider paying for a project to send Men to mars many people think the money could be better spent. However, man's Endeavour to overcome the impossible tasks of space travel could lead to a better understanding and benefits of technological breakthroughs. So I say waste some money on space travel if you really want to overcome the impossible. From earth we can only learn so much.

We keep learning new things. For instance there was just an article published about coating glass with a couple of different coatings and then if you apply a current, you can block sunlight or infrafed radiation on command. Every little thing we learn is like adding another piece to the puzzle.

We have yet to learn and account for what is going on in photosynthesis. Plants create more power for growth than we can account for. There seems to be something going on in plants that is more powerful than just converting sunlight. If we understood it and could harness it we could make a better solar pannel.

All these things are pieces to puzzles. So this seems to suggest we need to spend even more on research. It is just too easy to keep using gasoline when the next big discovery could be just around the corner. Man needs obstacles to overcome to make improvements.

The big bang theory doesn't get into the "start" of the big bang, only the aftermath when the universe was in existence and the rapid expansion of spacetime.

Could you please explain what you were trying to show in the previous posts like "time paradox". As per the responses to that post.

 

[Paul98]

Yes or no:

It had no beginning?

I think the point is that there is a "beginning", but if spacetime didn't exist before that, then asking what happened before that isn't a valid questions since there is no "before", if spacetime doesn't exist.

People have a hard time seeing this since they are so stuck in thinking the world works in a certain way, and it's the way they see around them. When in fact the world works in a much stranger and interesting way than we see. How we think things should work from our daily experiences is very different than how the universe actually works.

 

[Retro Rob]

Paul,

Fwiw, I have no problem with the BB theory, so your post is well taken. I have no idea exactly how the universe came to be, so I am more than satisfied with what science theorizes about it since it only deals with after.

However, if people want to say there was no before because they can't test it, doesn't mean there was no before -- it only means you can't test it yet.

There essentially can be no scientific proof either way, so the best recourse is we don't deal with that, and we don't know.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think the point is that there is a "beginning", but if spacetime didn't exist before that, then asking what happened before that isn't a valid questions since there is no "before", if spacetime doesn't exist.

People have a hard time seeing this since they are so stuck in thinking the world works in a certain way, and it's the way they see around them. When in fact the world works in a much stranger and interesting way than we see. How we think things should work from our daily experiences is very different than how the universe actually works.

Wrong. Reality tell us there can be no effect without a "cause".. that much is demonstrable.

 

[Paul98]

Paul,

Fwiw, I have no problem with the BB theory, so your post is well taken. I have no idea exactly how the universe came to be, so I am more than satisfied with what science theorizes about it since it only deals with after.

However, if people want to say there was no before because they can't test it, doesn't mean there was no before -- it only means you can't test it yet.

There essentially can be no scientific proof either way, so the best recourse is we don't deal with that, and we don't know.

They aren't saying there is no before because they can't test it, they are saying there is no before because if spacetime was created in the big bang then asking what happened before isn't a valid question. Simply because before comes because of time, and if spacetime doesn't exist there can't be before.

Now I don't think that we know enough to say for sure that there wasn't a "before". But this "before" that I would talk about, is different than when we think of it in spacetime. It will have much different properties than what we would think of as before in our universe.

The problem is how we think of time, and how we think of "Now". To most people they would say there is a single now that everywhere in the universe would agree with. But this is not true, what we think of as happening "Now" is not all the same, and depending on your direction and speed relative to me it may be very different. Like if I have two clocks in two different places, and to me they both are in sync, where as to another person moving relative to me the two clocks will be out of sync.

 

[Paul98]

Wrong. Reality tell us there can be no effect without a "cause".. that much is demonstrable.

No, just look at quantum physics.