Jump to content

 

1825338873_SNRPN2021banner.jpg.68bf12c7791f26559c66cf7bce79fe3d.jpg

 

What came before the Big Bang


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Rocket said:

It's still all hypothetical explanations of what could of happened. 

There is significant evidence supporting the current best model. Have you read the whole thread?

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, andrew s said:

There us no evidence for any of these speculations.  When there is please post again.

Jeeze Louise!!!! 🤣 I am NOT advocating any of the above. I post things on SGL
mostly because I feel they might be of *interest*  to people. Andrew you have
effectively "sat on" a number of my threads / posts. Is there a particular reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/06/2020 at 16:52, jetstream said:

I'm not even sure if my question makes sense- this very hot dense state, was it "everywhere"? or was it "in" anything? I remember Alan Guth saying we don't know what banged, where it banged or what it banged in.

You should disregard the term "big bang" completely it is misleading. The term was a pejorative criticism by Fred Hoyle  who disliked Georges Lemaître's  theory (he himself named it the Primeval Atom . It is wholly incorrect and misleading to think in terms of a physical bang - it leads to false assumptions and questions. 

Jim  

Edited by saac
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the human race can answer this question when we haven't even ventured out of our back yard, there will undoubtedly be new eliments, gasses, matter etc we have never encouted and could have had something to do with the development and fabric of the universe, we are trying to solve a problem with only a few clues. All this talk of time? What is time?..... Just another human invention. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

Just to show how easy it is. I propose a new Universe would have came, just now, from a Mini Cheddar but I just guzzled it so it did not.

Regards Andrew 

Yes but we know the composition of a mini cheddar because it is a human invention, so even if you did indeed guzzle it we still have all the metrics of said mini cheddar! 🤣🤣🤣

Edited by Jimmy Rocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Jeeze Louise!!!! 🤣 I am NOT advocating any of the above. I post things on SGL
mostly because I feel they might be of *interest*  to people. Andrew you have
effectively "sat on" a number of my threads / posts. Is there a particular reason?

I had no idea you felt like this. I am sorry. In this section I just try to put forward my best understanding of the science.

I will refrain from commenting on your posts in future.

Please accept  my apologies. 

Regards Andrew 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jimmy Rocket said:

Got to remember that we can only speculate and theorise as what we are trying to fathom is something that we have had no part in, we think we as a human race know what we are talking about but if truth be known we are only guessing. 

SORCE: Stafford2020. 

I don't agree - the very discipline, checks and balances of science lead to a degree of confidence that says we do understand and understand remarkably well.  Read up on the mathematical concept of "sigma confidence level"  and then consider that  sigma level 5 was applied as the bar for discovery of the Higgs boson !  If we could use such confidence levels in any other field of human endeavour then that would be truly remarkable.  In matters of professional  cosmology and particle Physics I think we do have a remarkable understanding of what happened and  the fundamental processes within our universe  - we are finding out more , closer and closer to t = 0.  That we as a species are able to do so is equally if not more so unreasonable. 

Jim 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again the terminology used is all.... Maybe, could have, might, theory, speculation etc etc.. I am not educated in these things and to be honest some of the wording and descriptions is way above my head but one thing for sure is that the human race is just making up what it thinks happened because that's what we do..... The earth used to be flat and we would fall off the edge into oblivion until someone (MAGELLAN) I think it was proved it to be spherical. 

 

Edited by Jimmy Rocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jimmy Rocket said:

Again the termiolgy used is all.... Maybe, could have, might, theory, speculation etc etc.. I am not educated in these things and to be honest some of the wording and descriptions is way above my head but one thing for sure is that the human race is just making up what it thinks happened because that's what we do..... The earth used to be flat and we would fall off the edge into oblivion until someone (MAGELLAN) I think it was proved it to be spherical. 

 

Oh Jimmy Rocket if only we could take this down the pub then what a good night that would be - maybe one day  :)  I'm sorry but if you sincerely believe that we are "making it up" then your understanding of science is not secure.  I can only guess that the-self imposed rigour of science,  the efficacy of its checks and balances and the severity of the burden of confidence that it demands of itself is something that the general public finds difficult to understand.  Now I'm not saying that in an arrogant way, so please forgive me, rather it is  an observation based on similar postings on the subject over numerous threads. Science no more "makes it up"  than a heart surgeon performs a bypass or  Mozart composed the Queen of The Night's aria - they didn't just make it up , they did it with conviction and reason.   Just as  the majority of the human race will never be capable of understanding the profundity of those works , I guess the same holds for the equivalent great works of science - and I include myself amongst them.  I do know however that they are not made up.   I think your opening line is where we can close the gap and agree Jimmy;  terminology is everything here and I accept that to many it may look like science has made it up , all I ask is that you trust me,  it has not.  :) 

 

Jim 

Edited by saac
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jimmy Rocket said:

The earth used to be flat and we would fall off the edge into oblivion until someone (MAGELLAN) I think it was proved it to be spherical. 

The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round rather than flat, for one thing they observed that the masts of ships were the first to appear over the horizon. In 240 BC Eratosthenes calculated its size.

"Eratosthenes had heard from travelers about a well in Syene (now Aswan, Egypt) with an interesting property: at noon on the summer solstice, which occurs about June 21 every year, the sun illuminated the entire bottom of this well, without casting any shadows, indicating that the sun was directly overhead. Eratosthenes then measured the angle of a shadow cast by a stick at noon on the summer solstice in Alexandria, and found it made an angle of about 7.2 degrees, or about 1/50 of a complete circle.

He realized that if he knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene, he could easily calculate the circumference of Earth. But in those days it was extremely difficult to determine distance with any accuracy. Some distances between cities were measured by the time it took a camel caravan to travel from one city to the other. But camels have a tendency to wander and to walk at varying speeds. So Eratosthenes hired bematists, professional surveyors trained to walk with equal length steps. They found that Syene lies about 5000 stadia from Alexandria."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, saac said:

Oh Jimmy Rocket if only we could take this down the pub then what a good night that would be - maybe one day  :)  I'm sorry but if you sincerely believe that we are "making it up" then your understanding of science is not secure.  I can only guess that the-self imposed rigour of science,  the efficacy of its checks and balances and the severity of the burden of confidence that it demands of itself is something that the general public finds difficult to understand.  Now I'm not saying that in an arrogant way, so please forgive me, rather it is  an observation based on similar postings on the subject over numerous threads. Science no more "makes it up"  than a heart surgeon performs a bypass or  Mozart composed the Queen of The Night's aria - they dint just make it up , they did it with conviction and reason.   Just as  the majority of the human race will never be capable of understanding the profundity of those works , I guess the same holds for the equivalent great works of science - and I include myself amongst them.  I do know however that they are not made up.   I think your opening line is where we can close the gap and agree Jimmy;  terminology is everything here and I accept that to many it may look like science has made it up , all I ask is that you trust me,  it has not.  :) 

 

Jim 

We will just have to have another beer then lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round rather than flat, for one thing they observed that the masts of ships were the first to appear over the horizon. In 240 BC Eratosthenes calculated its size.

"Eratosthenes had heard from travelers about a well in Syene (now Aswan, Egypt) with an interesting property: at noon on the summer solstice, which occurs about June 21 every year, the sun illuminated the entire bottom of this well, without casting any shadows, indicating that the sun was directly overhead. Eratosthenes then measured the angle of a shadow cast by a stick at noon on the summer solstice in Alexandria, and found it made an angle of about 7.2 degrees, or about 1/50 of a complete circle.

He realized that if he knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene, he could easily calculate the circumference of Earth. But in those days it was extremely difficult to determine distance with any accuracy. Some distances between cities were measured by the time it took a camel caravan to travel from one city to the other. But camels have a tendency to wander and to walk at varying speeds. So Eratosthenes hired bematists, professional surveyors trained to walk with equal length steps. They found that Syene lies about 5000 stadia from Alexandria."

Yes I think I read that on wiki too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Rocket said:

We will just have to have another beer then lol

I was hoping for more than another,  but I will drink to you health even if it is only remotely .  :) 

 

Jim 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, andrew s said:

I will refrain from commenting on your posts in future.

THAT will not what I was suggesting. Post as you wish. For me,
civilised discussion does no harm... even if "feelings" are strong.
But I do appreciate your apology and that you had no idea! 🙂

Retired (Old f*rt!) Physicist Anecdote Warning! 🥳

============== Deleted ============
Personal stuff that was seen by people intended! 🙂
============== Deleted ============

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested in this topic, and there appear to be some passionate devotees based on this thread, if you haven’t read it already, I would recommend “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss (ISBN 978-1-4711-1268-3). I have found this to be one of the more fathomable books on this subject.
 

As to the debate itself, I have an open mind, unlike the universe, which is flat, apparently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, saac said:

Oh Jimmy Rocket if only we could take this down the pub then what a good night that would be - maybe one day  :)  I'm sorry but if you sincerely believe that we are "making it up" then your understanding of science is not secure.  I can only guess that the-self imposed rigour of science,  the efficacy of its checks and balances and the severity of the burden of confidence that it demands of itself is something that the general public finds difficult to understand.  Now I'm not saying that in an arrogant way, so please forgive me, rather it is  an observation based on similar postings on the subject over numerous threads. Science no more "makes it up"  than a heart surgeon performs a bypass or  Mozart composed the Queen of The Night's aria - they didn't just make it up , they did it with conviction and reason.   Just as  the majority of the human race will never be capable of understanding the profundity of those works , I guess the same holds for the equivalent great works of science - and I include myself amongst them.  I do know however that they are not made up.   I think your opening line is where we can close the gap and agree Jimmy;  terminology is everything here and I accept that to many it may look like science has made it up , all I ask is that you trust me,  it has not.  :) 

 

Jim 

 

I don't think anyone is saying science is 'made up' but that it may not be the 'full truth'. It seems every scientific answer, by definition, provokes a further question... if water is hydrogen and oxygen then what is hydrogen and what is oxygen... if Mozart's brain caused that great aria then what caused Mozart's brain... if the singularity gave rise to the Universe then whither the singularity.... and so on and so on etcetera ad infinitum. In that sense terminology is indeed crucial - as Bohr said, we are 'suspended by language'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, goodricke1 said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying science is 'made up' but that it may not be the 'full truth'. It seems every scientific answer, by definition, provokes a further question...

Of course it is not and of course it does. Nobody who's business is science would claim so. The general public on the other hand seem to think they can hold the body science hostage to fortune over that. However, in doing so , they simply confirm their lack of understanding of science.  No Nobel  prize winner wants their discovery to be the final verse of the song; they, like Alexander would weep, for they would have nothing left to conquer . 

Jim 

Edited by saac
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may delete above "personal stuff" rant! But it is a worthy discussion. 😎

I am still something of a devotee of maths (as understood by theorists!).
If someone shows me *credible* maths (even if I cannot understand it)
this has some effect on me... I remember stuff from the film "Hawking":
A (grumpy!) Fred Hoyle vs. (young) Steven Hawking. True or not (my
sympathies for Fred Hoyle!) I do love the... "I worked it out" bit! lol. 🥳

https://youtu.be/PJsZROmroiY

 

Edited by Macavity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again we are revisiting 

2 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I may delete the above "personal stuff" rant! But it is a worthy discussion. 😎

I am still something of a devotee of maths (as understood by theorists!).
If someone shows me *credible* maths (even if I cannot understand it)
this has some effect on me... I remember stuff from the film "Hawking":
A (grumpy!) Fred Hoyle vs. (young) Steven Hawking. True or not (my
Sympathy for Fred Hoyle, but I do love the... "I worked it out" bit! lol. 🥳

https://youtu.be/PJsZROmroiY

 

Some people are great musicians , they just intuitively understand it . I think the same of people who have a true understanding on Mathematics - it's in their soul. The best I could ever do was just apply the rules.

Jim 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, saac said:

Some people are great musicians , they just intuitively understand it . I think the same of people who have a true
understanding on Mathematics - it's in their soul.

Heheh. There is a certain *rhythm* to higher mathematics? I attended a course on Lattice Gauge Theory.
I got LOST in the first five minutes! lol. My thoughts were that I simply didn't have the requisite Maths?
The facility to effortlessly understand "matrix notation" ... A mere "lines-worth" would take me a *day*
to deconstruct?!? There were few Text Books back then? "Merry banter" aside , Kudos to Theorists! 😸

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy Rocket said:

Again the terminology used is all.... Maybe, could have, might, theory, speculation etc etc.. I am not educated in these things and to be honest some of the wording and descriptions is way above my head but one thing for sure is that the human race is just making up what it thinks happened because that's what we do..... The earth used to be flat and we would fall off the edge into oblivion until someone (MAGELLAN) I think it was proved it to be spherical. 

 

Who thought the earth was flat and when did they think it? Do you know?  Does anyone? This isn't science, it's history. Given that, in the past, communication over large distances was difficult, many communities did not write down their beliefs and that history is a long time, there will have been many beliefs and many changes in belief, few of them recorded. The throwaway notion that 'we used to think the earth was flat' is a careless assumption and demonstrably false. People had seen the earth's curved shadow cast upon the moon during an eclipse. They had seen receding masts set below the horizon. They had seen the constellations change when you traveled north or south but not when you traveled east or west. More subtly, in a way, Polynesian navigators managed to pass between islands using a knowledge which still eludes modern comprehension. 

So, with respect, when you say, 'The human race is just making up what it thinks happened because that's what we do.....' that is, in fact, exactly what you are doing. You are making up history.

All the great European navigators - Magellan, Columbus and the rest, knew that the earth was (roughly) spherical. No educated person needed proof of this by the time a circumnavigation did prove it.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macavity said:

Heheh. There is a certain *rhythm* to higher mathematics? I attended a course on Lattice Gauge Theory.
I got LOST in the first five minutes! lol. My thoughts were that I simply didn't have the requisite Maths?
The facility to effortlessly understand "matrix notation" ... A mere "lines-worth" would take me a *day*
to deconstruct?!? There were few Text Books on it then? "Merry banter" aside , Kudos the Theorists! 😸

I guess, like music, it would just flow when you have reached mathematical enlightenment.  My progress through a mathematical  piece was always like playing the gears on an old series 1 Landrover, crunching blindly from one line to the next with long periods of nothing in between. :) 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, saac said:

I guess, like music, it would just flow when you have reached mathematical enlightenment.  My progress through a mathematical  piece was always like playing the gears on an old series 1 Landrover, crunching blindly from one line to the next with long periods of nothing in between. :) 

Jim

Stockhausen's gearchange.

Olly

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.