before the big bang

[ollypenrice]

Isn't the big bang - and other such notions of how we came into being a religion??

There is no difference from believing in a deity creating the universe or a scientific explanation such as the big bang...neither can be proven today - and require equal amounts of faith that their interpretation is correct.

Just posing the notion...not wanting controversy over it..or burned at the stake for suggesting such a thing

I think there is every difference between a scientific explanation and a religious one and, no, the Big Bang isn't a religion. That's why we can talk about it here, for one thing!

Science operates in a culture of doubt, religion in a culture of faith. In that sense they are diametrically opposed. It might be true that to 'believe in' the big bang you would need a lot of faith but most scientific thnkers do not 'believe in it'. They regard it as a description in the making, probably flawed, highly incomplete. Those who really are persuaded that it happened do not feel they need much 'faith', they are persuaded by the evidence (though you or I might not be.) Which brings us to ...

2) Science is evidence based. Religion is usually based on revelation of some kind.

3) And while it is not strictly true to say that all religions invoke deities the vast majority do so. Science does not.

So no, I see nothing in common between science and religion even if they both want to talk about how we got here. In Magic, Science and Religion Malinowski argues that magic has a closer affinity with science than with religion because it seeks to operate directly on nature without passing through a divine intermediary. It seems a reasonable point, to me, though I can't say I'm all that interested in magic. I am just reading that the CIA were, though, during the cold war. Barking!

Olly

[Macavity]

Isn't the big bang - and other such notions of how we came into being a religion??

I suspect the distinction is whether one allows only natural, or permits supernatural, agencies to take part in the process?

I had thought all this stuff was a "theory", but was prompted to a little further reading:

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.

But I sense now that there is quite a bit of "latitude" within terms that I had previously thought to be rigorously defined. I see e.g. it is only "preferable" that a theory can be verified. I must check out a few more term-meanings and their qualifiers...

Personally, I have no problem with the IDEA of "nothing -> something" - Whether I can FULLY conceptualise such things is another matter. But mostly, I don't worry...

[ollypenrice]

There is an excellent book on nothingness, 'The Book of Nothing' by John D Barrow. It deals with mathematical nothing - zero - and the non existant nothingness in physics. I'm tempted to say that it covers nothing, zero... and much, much less!'

Olly

[NeutrinoWave]

i was just wanting to hear your theories on what happened before the big bang, could we ourself come from a super massive blackhole?. Also could there be more than one universe?

When I was studying Cosmology many decades ago, we were taught of the concept of White Holes, ie Conceptual Opposites of Black Holes

Maybe the Big Bang was the resulting transfer of matter through a singularity from a cataclysmic event such as matter infalling into a Black Hole from a previous yet different Universe creating as output a White Hole into a new spacetime in our Universe through the "Big Bang"

Recently along a different line of approach a decade or so later, Theoretical Physicists have been playing with the idea of Brane Collisions

Whatever theory you use, I bet you cannot escape nowadays without pondering about a MultiVerse

Gravity is key here, and trying to establish why Gravitons are so weak and the possibility that they escape into higher dimensions as they are Closed Strings and hence cannot be confined to our Brane

Hope this Brane Theory does not do your brain in!

Very Profound ...

[Space Bat]

I suspect the distinction is whether one allows only natural, or permits supernatural, agencies to take part in the process?

I had thought all this stuff was a "theory", but was prompted to a little further reading:

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I sense now that there is quite a bit of "latitude" within terms that I had previously thought to be rigorously defined. I see e.g. it is only "preferable" that a theory can be verified. I must check out a few more term-meanings and their qualifiers...

Personally, I have no problem with the IDEA of "nothing -> something" - Whether I can FULLY conceptualise such things is another matter. But mostly, I don't worry...

My tongue in cheek question was there to describe the reality of this whole debate...

You tell an avid BBT devotee that it's all a load of rubbish - you will get the same disdain as you would telling the same thing to someone that firmly believes in the creationism....regardless of theory or belief are one in the same...just different angles of a side....

The fact is I doubt not in our lifetime will anyone be any wiser to the truth and belief in either should be given the same amount of scepticism until such things become fact...

[DarkStar7]

I don't know of any theory out there so far, or for that matter religious belief system. That can get away from creation at a fixed moment in time or a infinite amount time before hand. Surely the most basic framework of what ever theory or ideology that is the right one,must be one that is self contained and which creates itself.. It has to be cyclic, within itself.

The Universe is supposed to be everything, any suggestion of bulk space and multiverse, is simply suggesting we in a larger 'universe' which has the same problem of where did it all come from.

[DarkStar7]

Antimatter and matter were in a superposition state and so big bang did not need to be hot. The magnetic fields around the Earth is a positronic field of positrons in such a state.The Van Allen belt confines these positrons and forces them out this superposition state. This why there are positron particles there. This confirms that this nobody, called DarkStar7 who does not have billions of pounds in his back pocket is right and these so called experts are over looking parts of their own theories. See Alternative to Big Bang Thread and some of my others. The EM field contains both electrons and positrons in a superposition state. When electrons are captured there is an excess of positrons remaining in this state..In field theory this is magnetism.All magnetism is positrons in a superposition state and gives space an excess of negative mass pushing it apart. The more matter that is formed the more space expands. Dark energy is the magnetic field aligned between small scales and large scales.Sorry spilling over a number of threads so will now try to answer question... There was no before big bang because the cold big bang is happening all around us now! Particle physicists are obsessed with particles, are looking for high energy particles and forgetting that they can be in a superposition state... as a magnetic field. This is the backbone of quantum physics the quantum uncertainty and superposition.Experts... Lol

[JulianO]

I think it would be helpful for you to describe what you mean by a superposition of states, especially in respect to matter/anti-matter. I don't think its quite the same understanding I have of the term superposition.

[smiff]

i thingk that owing to the extent of open space ie infinity that the obsevable is such a miserable amount that there must be much more matter about than is given credit for

[DarkStar7]

I think it would be helpful for you to describe what you mean by a superposition of states, especially in respect to matter/anti-matter. I don't think its quite the same understanding I have of the term superposition.

What is your definition of the term?

Quantum Superposition to me describes that a particle can be in all possible states and locations at the same time, ie everywhere like a field.It is related to the Schrodinger wave equation. Remember the cat?If an electron/positron pair has the electron collapse out of quantum superposition whilst the positron remains in superposition I can't see how it can be annihilated by an electron do you?

If all matter annihilated antimatter we wouldn't be here.But both must be here in order to maintain energy conservation though. The universe must have a net energy of nothing! If I am right and the antimatter stays in a quantum superposition state, then what do feel the net result would be on the universe? The only answer I can see is dark energy. It is so simple.. It's brilliant.

[JulianO]

My understanding of superposition relates to a single particle that can be in several states. Until you observe it in some way, then it will collapse into one of the allowed states. I've not come across a case where I think you're saying its basically either an electron or a positron, and it will collapse into one of them (or both?).

I think you should write this up as a paper, submit it to a journal and let others scrutinise it if you've worked out all the maths.

[DarkStar7]

My understanding of superposition relates to a single particle that can be in several states. Until you observe it in some way, then it will collapse into one of the allowed states. I've not come across a case where I think you're saying its basically either an electron or a positron, and it will collapse into one of them (or both?).

No I am not saying the superposition of the particle can collapse in to either particle or both. I am suggesting that both particles are somehow glued together like a meson, perhaps white and anti White leptons go together as a meson,anyhow lets just say they are associated together, but can not collapse out of a superposition state at the same time, else they annihilate each-other. If both stays in a superposition state we have light. Both spins cancel and gives boson with spin zero.If one collapses say into the electron the positron remains as a positronic field. The force between electron and the associated positron in superposition is the magnetic force.

I think you should write this up as a paper, submit it to a journal and let others scrutinise it if you've worked out all the maths.

So long as my hypotheses do not contradict established scientific FACTS and work for me I am content.

[MjrTom]

I would just like to add that this thread I one of the most interesting and thought provoking discussions I have had the pleasure of reading in a long time

[DarkStar7]

Maybe the Big Bang was the resulting transfer of matter through a singularity from a cataclysmic event such as matter infalling into a Black Hole from a previous yet different Universe creating as output a White Hole into a new spacetime in our Universe through the "Big Bang"

You are more right than you realise.Now instead of thinking large scale, think small scale and put the idea of White hole and Black holes together at the same time. At macro scales we have on average neutral space expanding in all directions along with the production of some high energy particles.

Black holes and White hole are two aspects of the same phenomena. when producing a blackhole, pure energy ie electromagnetism is produced at right angles to it in 5D space.The Quantum foam is a sea of microscopic black holes and minibangs. Or looked at another way a sea of antiparticle and particle pairs constantly trying to annihilate themselves. This is quantum uncertainty. If we accept that this universe is black hole and its singularity is in superposition everywhere. Then every Black hole within the universe has it's singularity entangled with the that of the entire universe. Any matter that falls into any Black hole anywhere is combined with that dark matter stuff and resurrected..ie annihilated with it's antimatter partner and returned back to the universe, back to the quantum foam as pure EM energy. In other words a Gamma rays burst.

I guess a brane is one slice through my idea of universe being a hyper dimensional spinning vortex. The Universe is everything so the idea of multiverse is simply saying a universe within a universe.. Yes it must exist within itself.

[NeutrinoWave]

You are more right than you realise.Now instead of thinking large scale, think small scale and put the idea of White hole and Black holes together at the same time. At macro scales we have on average neutral space expanding in all directions along with the production of some high energy particles.

Black holes and White hole are two aspects of the same phenomena. when producing a blackhole, pure energy ie electromagnetism is produced at right angles to it in 5D space.The Quantum foam is a sea of microscopic black holes and minibangs. Or looked at another way a sea of antiparticle and particle pairs constantly trying to annihilate themselves. This is quantum uncertainty. If we accept that this universe is black hole and its singularity is in superposition everywhere. Then every Black hole within the universe has it's singularity entangled with the that of the entire universe. Any matter that falls into any Black hole anywhere is combined with that dark matter stuff and resurrected..ie annihilated with it's antimatter partner and returned back to the universe, back to the quantum foam as pure EM energy. In other words a Gamma rays burst.

I guess a brane is one slice through my idea of universe being a hyper dimensional spinning vortex. The Universe is everything so the idea of multiverse is simply saying a universe within a universe.. Yes it must exist within itself.

Like your thinking Dark Star, very lateral and abstract.

Never thought of the universe as a higher dimensional analogue of a Klein Bottle, but the quantum foam fits well with the conceptual idea of microscopic black holes that tunnel radiation into dark matter, and the reverse of that process manifesting as GRBs or the like.

Fascinating ... still would like to hear more of structure on smaller scales than Planck Length in the Quantum Foam scale. There is not that much written about Quantum Foam, but I hope that some SGL Theorists can help enlighten us ...

[Earl]

Before the big bang there was everything, after the big bang everything was expanding.

I think its just a transition from stationary to moving.

[DarkStar7]

I have never found any model either religious or scientific that can not get away from the 'BEFORE' problem. In creation theories that start the universe at a specific time we have... What came before? What caused it? Who produced God? We have this problem of something coming out of nothing. Alternatively we have ideas like Sir Fred Hoyle who said it has always been here. Then we have a the problem of why are we here now? What happened infinity and one day ago?

My Alternative to the Universe thread is the only one that does not have this problem. Although I know virtually nothing about ancient Chinese philosophy, it appears my ideas that I have developed independently (honest!) seem to be the basis of Taoism.

Jim al kalili on the BBC program Everything and Nothing showed how the uncertainty principle could be interpreted to show that Nothing can have a huge amount of energy. Richard Feynman was also quoted that a cup of vacuum could contain enough energy in it to boil all the oceans of the world.

I can also show nothing means infinite momentum in another plane. Now since we have a limit to acceleration in a particular direction, we can't have infinity,and so we can't have nothing. Nothing = Infinity

The speed of light limit prevents infinite momentum, prevents starting with nothing.Like Ying and yang 'nothing'and 'infinity' can not be separated away from one another.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang#section_1

[Marmite]

Isn't the big bang - and other such notions of how we came into being a religion??

Except that there is direct empirical evidence to support the Big Bang hypothesis, and that evidence was predicted long before it was detected. The Cosmic microwave background radiation. No other known mechanism can explain its existence.

[DarkStar7]

The big bang evidence is correct.. The interpretation is incorrect. The big bang is happening in the nothing now in the quantum foam. The uncertainty principle predicts it and it has been observed. The inflation is dark energy, the missing positrons in superposition. Am I the only person on this planet who can imagine scale as a direction from which the rules of relativity can be applied? The CMB radiation is production of particle and antiparticle pairs in equal numbers in the vacuum of space, from the energy of nothing, same mechanism. The energy is in the vacuum of space. The big boys can't think higher than 3D like me. I'm a genius you see

[Marmite]

The big bang evidence is correct.. The interpretation is incorrect... Am I the only person on this planet who can imagine scale as a direction from which the rules of relativity can be applied? [...] The big boys can't think higher than 3D like me. I'm a genius you see

Your journal paper should be interesting. Let us know when it's published.

[DarkStar7]

I'm a nobody who wouldn't stand a chance in hell in get my paper recognised. There are two many ignorant people in the way, this little undiscovered genius will have to wait until the new observations over turn current thinking.My hypothesis do not conflict with observation or current evidence yet.I have no intention of convincing people. Just remember my posts when your all those text books get rewritten. With all the equipment we have in space now there are going to huge advances in this field in the next few years. I will not get no Nobel prize, I don't mind just the satisfaction that my hypothesis will proven right soon. Keep hugging the old text book mate. I'll wait to the new updated one comes out in a few years. Lol

[Marmite]

My hypothesis do not conflict with observation or current evidence yet.

Is your "hypothesis" testable? How about falsifiability? And can you make any predictions?

I have no intention of convincing people.

Phew!

I will not get no Nobel prize...

What will you wear at the ceremony, and how do you intend to spend the money?

...I don't mind just the satisfaction that my hypothesis will proven right soon.

I'm on the edge of my seat!

Keep hugging the old text book mate. I'll wait to the new updated one comes out in a few years. Lol

"In a few years"?! Try, "every blumming semester". It's the biggest money-making scam in academia, maybe even in publishing.

[Capricorn]

How about the previous Big Bang ?

[DarkStar7]

Is your "hypothesis" testable? How about falsifiability? And can you make any predictions?

Yes, I can and have already.

Phew!

That right, I am not here to convince the following;

1. A religious type 'believer' who has a closed mind to new ideas.

2. A person who is classist and does not listen to a persons ideas who is not in the club with letters after his name.

3. A forum bully who doesnt personally care what he believes, so long as he tries to ridicule someone with an open mind who questions things.

What will you wear at the ceremony, and how do you intend to spend the money?

I don't expect to get any recognition... that's what I said... try reading the post more carefully, mate.

The Scientific Method is open to all regardless of their position in society. Yes, I am a nobody, doesnt stop me thinking. I use the tools of already established facts across the scientific spectrum. I submit all my hypothesis to questioning and compare with observation of nature. If you can find a proper flaw in my arguments by subjecting them to proper scientific testing I will be willing to except I am in error.

[Marmite]

Yes, I can and have already.

Where? And why aren't you world-famous as a result?

That right, I am not here to convince the following;

1. A religious type 'believer' who has a closed mind to new ideas.

2. A person who is classist and does not listen to a persons ideas who is not in the club with letters after his name.

3. A forum bully who doesnt personally care what he believes, so long as he tries to ridicule someone with an open mind who questions things.

At least you've managed to convince yourself. Or have you?

I don't expect to get any recognition... that's what I said... try reading the post more carefully, mate.

"I will not get no Nobel prize..."

The Scientific Method is open to all regardless of their position in society.

And almost nobody besides scientists uses it.

*Postulate: "What if..."

*Hypothesis: "My what if is testable, falsifiable, and predictive. It is supported by empirical evidence, and the result has been successfully repeated by others elsewhere."

*Profit!!!

Yes, I am a nobody...

Well, you're the only person who has said that.

...[it] doesnt stop me thinking. I use the tools of already established facts across the scientific spectrum. I submit all my hypothesis to questioning and compare with observation of nature. If you can find a proper flaw in my arguments by subjecting them to proper scientific testing I will be willing to except I am in error.

P E E R R E V I E W.