Big Bang - Wrap Your Brain Around

[luv2increase]

I find it quite odd how scientists continue to focus on what happened moments "after" the Big Bang occurred rather than moments "before" the Big Bang commenced.

Why do not they ask the question what happened just "before" the Big Bang? Is it too puzzling? Might it tap into the supernatural reasoning which they couldn't possibly fathom, even in the least bit?

So, I come here asking some of you; what do you believe happened just "before" the Big Bang. Also, where did the matter come from of which was the makeup of the material which allowed the Big Bang to even be possible?


I think it is more interesting to ponder about the moments leading up to the Big Bang rather than what happened afterwards.

What is your take on this? Discuss.

 

[C1]

If the mysterious M82 radio wave is coming from an intermediate-mass black hole's spinning accretion disc and strong jet, could that black hole be dragging material from this universe into yet another universe contained in an Einstein-Rosen Bridge between the black hole and a white hole?

That very idea was published this month in Physics Letters B. From Albert Einstein’s general relativity came the concept of a white hole connected to a black hole by a wormhole called an “Einstein-Rosen bridge.”

The “mouth” in one part of space outside wormhole is swallowing matter
into a black hole wormhole through the “throat” to come out of a white hole in another space outside the Einstein-Rosen bridge, perhaps even creating a “new universe.”

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1705&cateegory=Science


Post Notes:

There is no particular physical point of origin for the start of the universe. It is expanding outward in every direction at all points/locations. Anyone therefore just sitting in their armchair could say that the point of origin (ie, for the "big bang") is right where they are sitting & they would be correct!

Dr. Michio Kaku, in his last interview on coasttocoast, stated that the scientific community is now seriously considering multi-universe theories. In fact, the one dimensionality that may connect them is gravity.

 

[Visaoni]

I'm hardly an expert, but from what I remember of my Physics class and probably various (simplified) television shows, there was no "before" the Big Bang. Time started at the moment of the Big Bang. It is a little difficult to speculate on what happened before time itself started.

I may be wrong, but I believe the reason physicists say that time started at the Big Bang is that, in very crude terms, there was simply nothing different about any particular point in what was then a very small universe. It is impossible to measure time when everything everywhere is constantly the same.

This also means we will never be able to know what happened before the Big Bang. What would we observe for more insight into what happened? The best we can do is build increasingly powerful particle accelerators to gain a better understanding of what happened the moments after the Big Bang.

 

[luv2increase]

there was no "before" the Big Bang.

Due to my college education with a scietific background, I cannot agree with this statement.

Why?

In science, we always believe in "cause and effect" relationships. There had to of been something to "cause" the Big Bang. The Big Bang would be the "effect". Scientists never want to think about the "cause". This is probably the only area in science where they don't like to speculate on it. To say there was no cause would simply mean there was never a Big Bang, period.

If scientists believe that something came from nothing, then I guess they believe in the Supernatural.

 

[magomago]

seems like you have an axe to grind....

can one say "We don't know right now. Maybe we can learn more if we figure out what happens the moments after the big bang" ?

 

[canis]

What is your take on this?

Reefer Madness? A thesis for a "scietific" edumacation?

 

[Visaoni]

I doubt this is going to go anywhere. You took a small portion of my previous post and responded based entirely on your gut feelings.

The key is that prior to the Big Bang there was no time. Cause and effect relationships are completely dependent on time.

Then you continue to come to several completely uncalled for conclusions.

My best advise to you is this. Go to your local college and find a physics professor during their office hours or something. Ask him/her your questions. He/she can certainly explain it better than I can, and perhaps in-person you will not dismiss entire swaths of reasoning out of hand.

 

[CycloWizard]

There is no particular physical point of origin for the start of the universe. It is expanding outward in every direction at all points/locations. Anyone therefore just sitting in their armchair could say that the point of origin (ie, for the "big bang") is right where they are sitting & they would be correct!

This doesn't really make sense. It's impossible for something to expand outward in every direction, as "outward" implies that expansion is normal to some manifold. For your statement to hold, every point must be such a manifold. I don't think this is true, as I have yet to come apart at the seams. I'm not sure whether a single point of origin for the manifold of space can ever be determined, but I'm fairly certain that space cannot expand "outward in every direction." I think you are confusing spatial relativity (i.e. the arbitrary selection of a coordinate system for the solution of field equations) with the possible existence of a true point of origin. I can mathematically describe a circle by choosing infinitely many points as the origin of my coordinates, but that does not mean the circle does not have a center.

 

[luv2increase]

Then you continue to come to several completely uncalled for conclusions.

Wait just a minute. Why are you getting upset? What was said that was uncalled for? You surely are getting defensive. Everything thus far has been completely humble. Relax.

So you believe that time arose out of nothing? So, the Big Bang is the only thing to have ever occurred which the "cause and effect" relationship does not apply to?

I want to make it clear that I 100% believe in the Big Bang. The whole point of this thread is to "theorize" what "caused" the Big Bang.

If you can't be civil and polite, I suggest you just not post. This is a peaceful discussion. Please respect that. Thanks.


EDIT: The same applies to the poster canis.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

This doesn't really make sense. It's impossible for something to expand outward in every direction, as "outward" implies that expansion is normal to some manifold. For your statement to hold, every point must be such a manifold. I don't think this is true, as I have yet to come apart at the seams. I'm not sure whether a single point of origin for the manifold of space can ever be determined, but I'm fairly certain that space cannot expand "outward in every direction." I think you are confusing spatial relativity (i.e. the arbitrary selection of a coordinate system for the solution of field equations) with the possible existence of a true point of origin. I can mathematically describe a circle by choosing infinitely many points as the origin of my coordinates, but that does not mean the circle does not have a center.

Take a sheet of rubber and stretch it. It is expanding at all points, now just add a dimension. Space itself is indeed expanding at all points in every direction.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I'm hardly an expert, but from what I remember of my Physics class and probably various (simplified) television shows, there was no "before" the Big Bang. Time started at the moment of the Big Bang. It is a little difficult to speculate on what happened before time itself started.

I may be wrong, but I believe the reason physicists say that time started at the Big Bang is that, in very crude terms, there was simply nothing different about any particular point in what was then a very small universe. It is impossible to measure time when everything everywhere is constantly the same.

This also means we will never be able to know what happened before the Big Bang. What would we observe for more insight into what happened? The best we can do is build increasingly powerful particle accelerators to gain a better understanding of what happened the moments after the Big Bang.

There may be no time whatsoever.

 

[CycloWizard]

Take a sheet of rubber and stretch it. It is expanding at all points, now just add a dimension.

Right so far: it is expanding at all points.

Space itself is indeed expanding at all points in every direction.

Here is where something is amiss. The sheet of rubber expands at all points, but not in all directions: its displacements are vectors. Since the displacements are vectors, the displacement at each point has exactly one direction. This is true for an n-dimensional body.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I find it quite odd how scientists continue to focus on what happened moments "after" the Big Bang occurred rather than moments "before" the Big Bang commenced.

Why do not they ask the question what happened just "before" the Big Bang? Is it too puzzling? Might it tap into the supernatural reasoning which they couldn't possibly fathom, even in the least bit?

So, I come here asking some of you; what do you believe happened just "before" the Big Bang. Also, where did the matter come from of which was the makeup of the material which allowed the Big Bang to even be possible?


I think it is more interesting to ponder about the moments leading up to the Big Bang rather than what happened afterwards.

What is your take on this? Discuss.

Kaku has some theories.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Right so far: it is expanding at all points.

Here is where something is amiss. The sheet of rubber expands at all points, but not in all directions: its displacements are vectors. Since the displacements are vectors, the displacement at each point has exactly one direction. This is true for an n-dimensional body.

I disagree. I have no math to back up my supposition, but I can see the thought experiment in my mind's eye. If say the imaginary rubber plane is truly 2-dimensional (but we can somehow see it) and we stretch it exactly evenly in all directions, every point on the rubber plane is expanding in all possible directions.

 

[CycloWizard]

I disagree. I have no math to back up my supposition, but I can see the thought experiment in my mind's eye. If say the imaginary rubber plane is truly 2-dimensional (but we can somehow see it) and we stretch it exactly evenly in all directions, every point on the rubber plane is expanding in all possible directions.

No, that's not true. What you are describing is an equibiaxial stretching test. I model, design, and use equibiaxial testing devices as a major part of my job. The displacements are always a vector, which has exactly one direction. I can prove this mathematically. You might argue that the individual chains of elastomer are expanding in all directions, but this is again false except in the case of a negative Poisson ratio (which, as far as I know, is impossible for elastomeric materials, at least on the length scale of a single polymer chain).

 

[William Gaatjes]

I find it quite odd how scientists continue to focus on what happened moments "after" the Big Bang occurred rather than moments "before" the Big Bang commenced.

Why do not they ask the question what happened just "before" the Big Bang? Is it too puzzling? Might it tap into the supernatural reasoning which they couldn't possibly fathom, even in the least bit?

So, I come here asking some of you; what do you believe happened just "before" the Big Bang. Also, where did the matter come from of which was the makeup of the material which allowed the Big Bang to even be possible?


I think it is more interesting to ponder about the moments leading up to the Big Bang rather than what happened afterwards.

What is your take on this? Discuss.

Why would you want to know this ?

Why do you care ?

 

[C1]

Because that's supposed to be one of the things which makes "us" special.

We want to know the mind of God.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3337059/Michio-Kaku-Mr-Parallel-Universe.html

 

[SphinxnihpS]

No, that's not true. What you are describing is an equibiaxial stretching test. I model, design, and use equibiaxial testing devices as a major part of my job. The displacements are always a vector, which has exactly one direction. I can prove this mathematically. You might argue that the individual chains of elastomer are expanding in all directions, but this is again false except in the case of a negative Poisson ratio (which, as far as I know, is impossible for elastomeric materials, at least on the length scale of a single polymer chain).

OK, then the analogy is bad because the material != space. It doesn't change the fact that we are moving away from everything else in the universe. Ex. Look at a galaxy. We are moving away from that galaxy, now do a 180 and look at a galaxy (assume you can see through the Earth), we are also moving away from that galaxy. I understand this does not make sense from a Euclidean point of view. Now look at any galaxy, and once again we are moving away from it, no matter where you look every galaxy is moving away. The only explanation available, other than we are at the center of the universe is that space is indeed expanding in all directions from every point.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Why would you want to know this ?

Why do you care ?

Galactic takeover. Why else would anyone want to know this stuff?

 

[Stiganator]

..

 

[DrPizza]

Wait just a minute. Why are you getting upset? What was said that was uncalled for? You surely are getting defensive. Everything thus far has been completely humble. Relax.

So you believe that time arose out of nothing? So, the Big Bang is the only thing to have ever occurred which the "cause and effect" relationship does not apply to?

I want to make it clear that I 100% believe in the Big Bang. The whole point of this thread is to "theorize" what "caused" the Big Bang.

If you can't be civil and polite, I suggest you just not post. This is a peaceful discussion. Please respect that. Thanks.


EDIT: The same applies to the poster canis.

We can only hypothesize, not "theorize" what caused the Big Bang. However, there are some experiments currently or about to be run which will rule out some of the possible causes of the Big Bang.

However, there are two elements to science. One , as the OP stated, is cause an effect - scientists look for cause. The other element is the ability to verify these observations. At present time, there really is no means known which would verify one way or another the cause of the Big Bang, thus technically, at least for the present, it lies slightly outside the realm of science. Ditto for such "theories" (really, hypotheses) of multiverses. As we cannot communicate with these multiverses, we have no means by which we can verify their existence. Thus, the question of multiverses is also just slightly out of the realm of science.

 

[luv2increase]

Why would you want to know this ?

Why do you care ?

Wow... With that mentality, we all wouldn't be typing on keyboards and looking at screens with bright, flashy images coming from it. We wouldn't have airplanes. We wouldn't have cars. We wouldn't have electricity.

Really, that was a horrible post. Go ask all the scientists at CERN that question. You'd be shunned for asking such a thing. Absolutely terrible...

If science doesn't interest you, you posted in the wrong thread. In science, we like to figure out things. The question I posed is probably the most puzzling question that has ever come to science. You could call it one of the grandaddies of scientific inquiries. It is to understand why all is the way it is; to understand how all of this came about; to understand matter in all its forms.

 

[Heat84]

Due to my college education with a scietific background, I cannot agree with this statement.

Why?

In science, we always believe in "cause and effect" relationships. There had to of been something to "cause" the Big Bang. The Big Bang would be the "effect". Scientists never want to think about the "cause". This is probably the only area in science where they don't like to speculate on it. To say there was no cause would simply mean there was never a Big Bang, period.

If scientists believe that something came from nothing, then I guess they believe in the Supernatural.

There has to be a point in the history of the universe/reality at which there was nothing before that point. Doesn't there?

 

[luv2increase]

There has to be a point in the history of the universe/reality at which there was nothing before that point. Doesn't there?

If the universe is "infinite", there really is no beginning nor ending.

You just touched on something that I think the human mind has trouble grasping. The thought that everything just always was. See, if a scientist can believe in that, then they can believe that God is infinite. That simply isn't acceptable to "the majority" of scientists though.

If there was a beginning, where did all the matter come from? See, scientists are trying to figure out what all types of matter exist in the universe and how the subatomic material makes up matter.

The real question is where did the subatomic material come from? Did is just magically appear at some point in time and magically began to rearrange itself into every single type of matter that exist today both known and unknown?

 

[CycloWizard]

OK, then the analogy is bad because the material != space. It doesn't change the fact that we are moving away from everything else in the universe. Ex. Look at a galaxy. We are moving away from that galaxy, now do a 180 and look at a galaxy (assume you can see through the Earth), we are also moving away from that galaxy. I understand this does not make sense from a Euclidean point of view. Now look at any galaxy, and once again we are moving away from it, no matter where you look every galaxy is moving away. The only explanation available, other than we are at the center of the universe is that space is indeed expanding in all directions from every point.

No, that's not the only explanation. If we are moving radially away from the origin of a circle and so are both of those galaxies, they may become further away depending on relative velocities and accelerations. If I stretch a circular piece of rubber, a point at 2/3 of the radius will be further away from a point 1/3 of the radius and a point at the edge of the film after stretching than it was before.