What I don't understand about the Big Bang.

[human_male]

Ok, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

Okay, with that so far. But if before that happened there was nothing but this one particle... where did that particle come from? How did that particle exist when there was no existance? And why just that one particle?

Anyone?

 

[cloudy]

Ok, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

The beginning is where your thinking goes sideways. Our universe isn't even close to being the only universe in existence.

The big bang theory only applies to ours.

 

[jomar]

Ok, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

Okay, with that so far. But if before that happened there was nothing but this one particle... where did that particle come from? How did that particle exist when there was no existance? And why just that one particle?

Anyone?

We borrowed it.

 

[Darkniciad]

Yep, thinking of it as "creation" is what makes it fall apart. If it was all there, all smooshed up, that's sensible from the data available.

Where that smooshed up ball of everything came from... Don't think science is going to solve that one. Religion would probably make sure word never got out if it did

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

First of all, the Big Bang Theory deals only with our own universe. The basic equations assume that the physical laws of nature hold true throughout our universe. That may or may not be true.

Second, all the matter in the universe was present at the beginning, floating around in free space. Because of gravitational attraction some 13.5 billion years ago the matter began to collect at one central point creating a gigantic super planet/sun. Because of the weight of the matter collected, the super planet/sun was unstable and unbelievably hot.

As more and more matter collected at this super giant, some point was reached where the matter was so hot and compressed under such pressure that even the sub-atomic particles were stripped away from their nucleuses. The collided with each other at near light speeds creating anti-matter. Eventurally this caused a huge explosion sending all the matter in the universe outward in all directions away from the central point and away from the nuclear furnace that was driving the whole thing.

As the matter particles flew away they cooled and began to slow. Some particles collected together again and created new stars, planets, etc. but were still moving away from the central point.

Theoretically, at some time in the future, all matter runs out of kenetic energy and begins to collapse back to the central point and the whole thing starts over again, but that's unclear in the equations.

 

[carverII]

One day people will be able to compromise all the extremes about how the world and universe came into existance. Until then it's all just a jumble of hypothesis.

Whether divine or atomic, I'm happy to exist. The last magic glimpse of the sun as it is setting or the exact moment a danelion loses it puffball into the breeze, it's all about living in between the micro-seconds of our relative lives. The science of the whole thing is fine I guess, but I prefer the warmth of a hand in mine.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

[quote+Jenny_Jackson]Second, all the matter in the universe was present at the beginning, floating around in free space. Because of gravitational attraction some 13.5 billion years ago the matter began to collect at one central point creating a gigantic super planet/sun. Because of the weight of the matter collected, the super planet/sun was unstable and unbelievably hot.

As more and more matter collected at this super giant, some point was reached where the matter was so hot and compressed under such pressure that even the sub-atomic particles were stripped away from their nucleuses. The collided with each other at near light speeds creating anti-matter. Eventurally this caused a huge explosion sending all the matter in the universe outward in all directions away from the central point and away from the nuclear furnace that was driving the whole thing.

As the matter particles flew away they cooled and began to slow. Some particles collected together again and created new stars, planets, etc. but were still moving away from the central point.

Theoretically, at some time in the future, all matter runs out of kenetic energy and begins to collapse back to the central point and the whole thing starts over again, but that's unclear in the equations.[/quote]

No, there is nothing unclear about it at all. The universe will not recondense because there isn't enough matter in it to allow that to happen. That's the yo-yo universe, a darling of a collection of British astronomers who simply couldn't get their heads around the idea that we have one Universe that started at one discrete point and that will eventually go away. The idea is to "religious" for the astronomers of Fred Hoyle's generation. However, since they are all dying off, now, the whimsy of their desires is dying, too.

And the concept of the giant collapsing sun before the beginning has no evidence, either physical or reliably theoretica, either. Cosmology simply cannot answer that question, "what was before the Bang" with anything but "nothing".

 

[fifty5]

OK, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

Okay, with that so far. But if before that happened there was nothing but this one particle... where did that particle come from? How did that particle exist when there was no existence? And why just that one particle?

Anyone?

It's mind-blowingly awesome, but the evidence points that way.

Current stuff is easy. There's an arrow stuck in the gold. Run the tape backwards and it comes unstuck, flies back to the bow, the string relaxes - and the archer knocks the arrow off it.

Pick any other sequence and do the same thing.

As I say, current stuff is easy (and you can go back further, seeing the archer put the arrow back in the quiver, march backwards off the butt, take off the quiver - and so on).

The big bang just uses the same idea. Start with the stars and galaxies expanding - which can be observed - then run the tape backwards. OK, it needs more data that either you or I have got - and more advanced physics than the arrow - but as more evidence accumulates, it still all leads back to that singularity. However unlikely - and awesome - it may seem, the tape does appear to play backwards to what you describe: a singularity, with the same mass as everything that currently exists, but no time or space until that universal firework went off.

Some scientists see that as proof of god, but their 'god' seems to me very different to the one worshipped by most religions: this 'god' set up rules (physics), lit the blue touch-paper and stood back! No subsequent intervention whatsoever. (Which implies, for instance, that prayer is futile, except in so far as it affects the psychology of those who pray - remember, no intervention, so no answer to prayers - at least within this life. And 'God on our side' is pure self deception.)

The only thing in common between this vision and that of most deists is that 'god' is beyond human conception.

But it still doesn't exclude morality and ethics - as products of the human mind. Accepting that good and evil are human constructs doesn't make them any less valid. Compare with the US Constitution. Created by humans, but still an awesome document.

 

[3113]

The science of the whole thing is fine I guess, but I prefer the warmth of a hand in mine.

Why it is that people MUST imply that the two are mutually exclusive and that BOTH can't be enjoyed?

I enjoy both, thank you very much. It takes nothing away from the beauty of the stars for me to gaze up at them and know, with wonder and delight, that those points of light are suns, even, if I have the right telescopes, galaxies! And I can enjoy the warmth of our own sun on my skin, the beauty of sunrise or sunset while knowing all about the nuclear fusion that keeps it burning.

You imply that you think science takes away all joy from the universe, as telling a child there's no such thing as Santa Claus might ruin Christmas. But it's exactly the opposite: to those of us who love science, finding out the answers to any mystery enhances our enjoyment a thousand fold. Science takes nothing away, and, being that new things are discovered daily, gives back infinitely.

 

[fifty5]

Science takes nothing away, and, being that new things are discovered daily, gives back infinitely.

Rock on!

To me it's even better than that: it's fellow human people who are uncovering all this. Granted physics is simpler than psychology or politics, but if humans can do one, maybe they can do the other too.

My glass is more than half full.

 

[maggot420]

Ok, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

Okay, with that so far. But if before that happened there was nothing but this one particle... where did that particle come from? How did that particle exist when there was no existance? And why just that one particle?

Anyone?

Umm...that was mine. I knew I left it somewhere...

 

[Stella_Omega]

The science of the whole thing is fine I guess, but I prefer the warmth of a hand in mine.

Why it is that people MUST imply that the two are mutually exclusive and that BOTH can't be enjoyed?

I enjoy both, thank you very much. It takes nothing away from the beauty of the stars for me to gaze up at them and know, with wonder and delight, that those points of light are suns, even, if I have the right telescopes, galaxies! And I can enjoy the warmth of our own sun on my skin, the beauty of sunrise or sunset while knowing all about the nuclear fusion that keeps it burning.

You imply that you think science takes away all joy from the universe, as telling a child there's no such thing as Santa Claus might ruin Christmas. But it's exactly the opposite: to those of us who love science, finding out the answers to any mystery enhances our enjoyment a thousand fold. Science takes nothing away, and, being that new things are discovered daily, gives back infinitely.

Nicely put, 3113

I have a little knowledge of biology and the nervous system-- knowing why the hand is warm, and knowing how the warmth comes to my attention through my nerve endings-- and I still love the feeling of a warm hand in mine.
Perhaps the more because I understand how much has happened to bring this contact about...

 

[Xelebes]

First of all, the Big Bang Theory deals only with our own universe. The basic equations assume that the physical laws of nature hold true throughout our universe. That may or may not be true.

Second, all the matter in the universe was present at the beginning, floating around in free space. Because of gravitational attraction some 13.5 billion years ago the matter began to collect at one central point creating a gigantic super planet/sun. Because of the weight of the matter collected, the super planet/sun was unstable and unbelievably hot.

As more and more matter collected at this super giant, some point was reached where the matter was so hot and compressed under such pressure that even the sub-atomic particles were stripped away from their nucleuses. The collided with each other at near light speeds creating anti-matter. Eventurally this caused a huge explosion sending all the matter in the universe outward in all directions away from the central point and away from the nuclear furnace that was driving the whole thing.

As the matter particles flew away they cooled and began to slow. Some particles collected together again and created new stars, planets, etc. but were still moving away from the central point.

Theoretically, at some time in the future, all matter runs out of kenetic energy and begins to collapse back to the central point and the whole thing starts over again, but that's unclear in the equations.

That's one of the hypotheses out there.

The other is a bit more complicated and doesn't require a superball of matter, all it requires is focal alignment of dimensions, either in super-string or lie-8 structure, where energies and mass pass through "mirrors" that reflect each other and cause an expansion of some sort or another. With this hypothesis, it assumes that no real contraction or expansion takes place or any of that is rather minimal compared to the cyclical nature of the shifting alignments and reflections of particles as they go through the 8 or 11 dimensions.

 

[cantdog]

I'm happy to exist.

Amen, brother.

God can suck my cock. (I deny the holy spirit, and it's good damn work to be doing.) The Anthropomorphic Principle, Human, old pal, is worth a gander. Have a look at it, thou.

I think it implies a whole raft of universes and we are in one of the benign ones because otherwise, we wouldn't be, at all. I visualize the universe as a bubble. Bubble-wise. As it were.

So the universes, of which ours is undoubtedly one, mark you, the universes, qua bubbles, if qua is the word I'm groping for, would exist in the gin/tonic of some other, rather larger, glass in the hand of some unworthy nymphet looking to entrap some billiardaire of an advanced age by displaying her cleavage and impersonating innocence.

 

[cantdog]

That's physics and cosmology, that is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's physics and cosmology, that is.

As taught by Vaughan Bodè

 

[keeblercrumb]

Ahh what the hell.... I will throw my two kopeks in.....

I love this big bang stuff..... I can't hardly fathom the mathematics and physics involved but I dig the concepts... at least my simplistic version of them..

So to your question.... I think the answer lies within your question... you acknowledge the absence of time in the singularity but then promptly resurrect it by asking what was "before" which only has meaning in the presence of a "time" continuum.....

I think of it all as simply a process.... expanding... contracting..... and it just "is"..... with no "come from" or "go to".... simply "is". And the mechanisms of the "is" are there to puzzled out by the big brains amongst us.

And since we are talking about "big bangs" let me also tell you about last night.... And while it may be suffused with mysteries, it is also a subject with which I am far better informed….



-KC

 

[amicus]

Perhaps perspective is as much an answer as anything.

In a line from Galileo, through Newton, Einstein and Hawkings, in the relatively short span of time of a few centuries we can now at least raise the question of the origin of the Universe in somewhat rational terms.

The multi Universe theories are just speculation, nothing more and even so, would only push the question back another level.

The essential unification of the relative field theory and the quantum theory of physics provided by Hawkings, is but the latest step in comprehend whence cameth we...just another step...give us another ten thousand years....

cheers...


Amicus...

 

[TxRad]

I opened this thread expecting to hear about Jenny Jackson's first gang bang. What do I find? Science.

Another theory that is becoming popular is that there is the outlet from a giant blackhole at the center of our universe and everything here used to be somewhere else. The black hole vacuums up stars and dumps them out here. We're the dust bag for a cosmic sized vacuum cleaner.

Dust mites unite

 

[keeblercrumb]

I opened this thread expecting to hear about Jenny Jackson's first gang bang. What do I find? Science.

Another theory that is becoming popular is that there is the outlet from a giant blackhole at the center of our universe and everything here used to be somewhere else. The black hole vacuums up stars and dumps them out here. We're the dust bag for a cosmic sized vacuum cleaner.

Dust mites unite

Well that just sucks......



-KC

 

[john-the-author]

I don't quite get wrapped up in the idea of what came before the Big Bang--although I'm not dissing that one as a real mindbreaker--nearly as much as trying to understand the idea of "What is the universe in? It's a thing, it has size, shape, and so on; it should be 'in' something and, if so, what's that thing it's in. WHERE is the universe sitting?"

It's the same sorta unanswerable question, I grant you.

I recently heard an hypothesis that suggested that the speed of light changed about 400 million years out from the Big Bang and that that would've explained a lot of phenomena that don't currently match up to the data. It's an interesting hypothesis and I want to hear more about it.

NPR on Science Friday about 18 months ago did something on the resolution of the POV between two branches of cosmology and they're now agreeing that there are 11 dimensions (into which, of course, an infinite number of sheaves of universes can go).

As Calvin said to Hobbes, "Let's go exploring!"

 

[human_male]

That's one of the hypotheses out there.

The other is a bit more complicated and doesn't require a superball of matter, all it requires is focal alignment of dimensions, either in super-string or lie-8 structure, where energies and mass pass through "mirrors" that reflect each other and cause an expansion of some sort or another. With this hypothesis, it assumes that no real contraction or expansion takes place or any of that is rather minimal compared to the cyclical nature of the shifting alignments and reflections of particles as they go through the 8 or 11 dimensions.

People aren't wearing enough hats.

 

[Xelebes]

People aren't wearing enough hats.

I don't entirely understand what I wrote. What I have come to understand is that energy and matter come into fountains of energy that appear as the higher dimension convolute match up to lower dimensions to give off large reactions. IT is one of the theories behind black and white holes.

 

[Frank Noir]

Ok, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

Okay, with that so far. But if before that happened there was nothing but this one particle... where did that particle come from? How did that particle exist when there was no existance? And why just that one particle?

Anyone?

Um, isn't it just that our calculations can only go back as far as the big bang - or some tiny fraction of a second after? So that in effect, the big bang destroyed our (current) knowledge of what came before?

 

[neonlyte]

Ok, so before the universe there was no time, or space, or anything at all. No reality. Not even a void. Nothing, except a tiny particle of infinite density that at some point, for some reason decided to explode, creating the universe and time and space and reality as it went.

Okay, with that so far. But if before that happened there was nothing but this one particle... where did that particle come from? How did that particle exist when there was no existance? And why just that one particle?

Anyone?

42
















Why does it matter?

Why does matter matter?

Does it matter that I don't care why matter matters?

If I knew about matter, would it matter that I knew why matter mattered?

I blame the white rabbit! Not that it matters.