The Big Bang

[skybond]

I have seen lots of programs recently (Stephen Hawkings etc) where they have talked about laws of nature and how they will apply across the whole Universe.

My question is regarding the Big Bang. If there was a singularity which exploded to form the Universe then how is this consistent with the laws of nature. Something that is so tiny yet can release so much matter as to create the entire universe.

I also cannot get my head around what was there just before the big bang. How can you explain infinite time .. what was there before that infinite time.

I am not trying to be pedantic or pushing a theological viewpoint but I do find that the layman's point of view is the most useful when trying to understand something so fundamental.

[brantuk]

My understanding of it is that the laws of nature don't apply within a singularity - no one really knows what laws do apply in that level of heat and density. I like to compare it with the splitting of the atom and the huge energy releases that result. It's gotta be something along those lines I guess.

[gobes]

From what I recall from reading some of Hawking's work... he does concede that we can't really know what happened prior to the big bang, since physics and the laws of nature as we know them would not have been the same.

[skybond]

That is kind of what I was worried about .. if we can say that the Universe will adhere to the laws of physics and nature but the origins of the Universe do not then surely we have a problem.

[Catanonia]

Search for videos on m brane and 11th dimension for some theories.

They make sense, but means parallel universes

[skybond]

Parallel universes is not something I can even entertain. To think that there is someone out there that has made all the mistakes that I have not made is totally unrealistic, If there is a mistake to be made then I have made it!

Kafka covered parallel paths pretty well in the "Unbearable Lightness of Being", one of my all time favorites. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence for parallel universes.

[Catanonia]

Well sometimes the far out thinkers have been right. Einstien to name one. Why shouldn't it exist. The theory sounds and feels good to me.

Afterall, it does explain alot if it is true....

I would go as far as everything is parallel, one minute to the next, but why can't other universes exist that collide in the 11th dimension to create our universe. Makes perfect sense to me. 2 universes in the 11th dimension collide giving our universe with it's own set of physical constants.

Thinking about it, 99.999 % of other universes would die due to the incompatible physical constants and would eliminate most of your fears.....

Something to think about at least.

[Steve922]

One important point is that the Big Bang created time as well as space. So there is no meaning to the concept of 'before' the Big Bang.

So the theory goes... :-)

Personally, I think its a bit like quantum physics; i.e. if you can get your head around it, there's something wrong with you. :-)

Steve

[LukeSkywatcher]

I think the Big Bang Theory is fundamentally flawed. You see Dr. Sheldon Cooper is way too funny to be an astrophysicist.

[pvaz]

Quantum is just the realization we don't have the capability to know all the initial variables thus we can't predict the outcome with absolute certainty. So we apply probability to a problem and calculate how likely a given outcome will happen.

To me it's not more difficult to understand the general idea behind quantum as it is to calculate any probability problem. The only thing I had trouble with was the math, there was a point in college where I had to admit it was over my current capabilities. It's a bit the same as general relativity: you can get the general idea, you can get to a point where you feel you have a good general understanding of it, but to actually do the math and get precise results for several situations is something only a few are capable.

[Doc]

One important point is that the Big Bang created time as well as space. So there is no meaning to the concept of 'before' the Big Bang.

So the theory goes... :-)

Personally, I think its a bit like quantum physics; i.e. if you can get your head around it, there's something wrong with you. :-)

Steve

This is correct Steve.

The big bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space itself, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space and time, or space-time.

So, the big bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Alot of people think of the Big bang as an explosion. It was not, I like to think of it a the big Expansion...

Almost instantly the universe gets very large, driven on by the vacuum of space it expands, and space and time are created.

[GuillermoBarrancos]

Whenever they use the word Singularity. It simply means they do not know.

I do not think our brains are enough developed yet, to be able to understand the Universe.

Who says Einstein is right? Or Hawking?

Who says the Big Bang theory is right? If that really happened?

Everything is based on theories and observations from this planet. And this planet alone.

Einstein says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Yet they calculated that distant galaxies are traveling away from eachother at speeds higher than the speed of light?

We do not know how big the Universe is. As if there is an end. What is there beyond this end?

If the Big Bang did happen. Then what was before the big bang?

If God really exists and initiated the Big Bang. Who created God?

The more you think about it. The less it comes as a suprise why so many people hold on to a religion.

It keeps them sane............... in a way I guess.

As for the majority of mankind. The idea of looking up at the stars and see no end. Just a vastness of space with no end. The mere thought of that would drive most people insane.

Mankind is not ready yet. Wich means we are not ready yet to meet aliens from other worlds either.

----------------

Ofcourse I am not saying that all theories are wrong. They all hold merrit in a way. And paved the way for technological advancement as we know of.

But theories get revised all the time. Some even shot and completely replaced by a new one.

And think about it. In a way we all really must hope Einstein is not right. Or we will be stuck on this planet forever.

[Doc]

Just a friendly reminder that we do not discuss religion on this forum

[GuillermoBarrancos]

Just a friendly reminder that we do not discuss religion on this forum

No worries. I might be Katholic from birth and all. But haven't been to the church in over 17 years or so. I have pretty much given up on religion long long ago. And see it more like a total waste of time.

It was more like reference of what lot of people are saying about Big Bang theory and all. And how religion was happy about that theory. Because it lingers to the idea that there was a moment of creation.

[ASIGN_Baz]

Even if you had other dimensions and parallel universes colliding or whatever to create this one, you still go back to the same questions. Where and when did it all start? What made something from nothing? If expansion is driven by a vacuum or whatever, even that space/void is a containment of some sort. It has physical properties and even volumetric dimensions. What is outside that? What is outside the next? etc... even if all matter was contained within a single point, regardless of how infintessimally small, it is still something. How did it get made? String theory, branes, multi-verses, dark energy, dark matter, different dimensions, all contain matter/energy of some sort or they would not be.

The way I see it, space is infinite. Infinity has a beginning. It has no end. Energy converts, changes, but never ever stops, it just goes on into infinity.

A Creator, on the other hand, by definition, is outside of all this. When such entity created time, the concept of beginning and end would not be binding on said entity. This is the implication of the word Eternal. It has no beginning and no end.

There lies the difference for me. I am a physical being created and living in an infinite universe, governed by time, energy, physics, thermodynamics and atrophy. How can I hope to understand the concept of anything but my own environment, regardless of how big it is?

None of us were around at the beginning of time, and a lot has changed since. We can follow the bread-crumbs of evidence to try to unlock some of the mysteries of the past, but that trail has limits.

A Creator, by definition, would be beyond our comprehension because He is outside our understanding, no matter how smart we think we are.

This is not a religious argument, it is an attempt to share some thoughts on the difference between the concepts of infinity and eternity. Both are required in order to maintain objectivity. Hopefully it helps to keep a healthy balance for someone with this deeper train of thought. May I encourage you to keep asking questions.

Baz.

[ASIGN_Baz]

Here's something to think about. How many million tonnes of Hydrogen does our sun convert into helium every second?

Now, how many stars are there in our galaxy, many of them far more massive than our tiny main-sequence star? 400 Billion?

How many other galaxies out there of varying size and weight are there?

These contain only a tiny fraction of all the matter and energy in the voids between. Can we come even come up with a figure?

Now try to imagine all this matter at some stage compressed into a single point. It is still a LOT of stuff.

The origin (even if the theory is correct) of such an object boggles the mind.

Baz.

[beamish]

Theoretical physics has brought us a long way forward in understanding our environment and so shouldn't be poo-poo'ed- of course not all propositions will be correct but in proposing ideas it sets the mind thinking and often creative ideas will generate others and ways of testing/experimenting these theories-Our understanding grows by degrees.

M-Theory, Superstring theory, Branes etc offer tantalising answers to some of these questions discussed but just as Einstein and Maxwell were 200-250yrs after Newton, we may have to wait for a real breakthrough.

Big Bang and Inflationary model (as currently often understood) are already looking a bit old hat, the idea of a cyclical birth & death of our Universe with a slower expansion is beginning to gain weight re Branes, fundamental ingredients of Space & Time may also yet be discovered just as Strings offer an explanation of fundamental "particles" of matter/energy.

Few Physicists are willing to stand up and scream "Point Particle Physics is still the way !"

The LHC, once fully operational, is very likely to offer yet more groundbreaking insights, one way or another.

I'll admit trying to visualise the whole of the known observable Universe compressed into something the size of a micro nugget does twist my noodle but when one starts to consider the overwhelming preponderance of void within atoms of matter, ie it's almost all void, then well may be...... it's only natural to feel it can't be possible because of our day to day experience of "solid" states.

My two pennyw'th

[ASIGN_Baz]

Wonderful points there Karlo. Thanks mate.

Baz.

[Joe105]

My own belief is that there never was a 'Big Bang'.

I believe that ther was always 'something' there.A fundemental 'All' that is always in existance.I feel that the creation of our universe is a cyclic event.

At the beginning of each cycle there exists the 'All'. In a state of absolute rest. In very,very simplistic terms, the All then experiences movement which leads to differentation to a positive and negative state.This differentation leads through various phases from light through to matter.

Vibration is the key.Everything has its own vibration.Everything is made up of vortices of energy formed from the aether that is the All.

From the atom to the solar systems,to the galaxies,to the super systems of galaxies. To the universe itself. Everything spins in a vortex and has its own vibrations.

Once all creation is achieved,the wlole gradually reverts back to the state of absolute rest until the next cycle.

This is my belief.

A belief is not truth. A belief always leaves room for doubt.

I believe ancient races before this one knew much more than we do now.

I think the key to their knowledge lies in the ancient myths, legends and writings of the ancients.

A lot has been translated into English and other languages. A lot has been translated that is not available to the general public.A lot has yet to be translated.

But enough!

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts.

[Doc]

Just a few points Joe.

1. Where did the "ALL" come from.

2. Isn't the "ALL" the same as a singularity.

3. What ignited the "ALL".

4. If it's on a cyclic path what happens to the known universe to begin the "ALL" once more.

5. If we are all spinning in a vortex, why do we have different redshifts.

I could name a few more but you get the idea....

I love the idea and concept but it leaves just more questions.

[Joe105]

The way I concieve it, tha 'All' doesn,t come from anywhere .It always is and always will be.No beginning and no end.

To my mind a sigularity implies a border,a boundry.The All has no boundry.Our minds cannot concieve anything without a boundry.Its pointless trying. I just have to accept that fact.

As the All is in everything.Everything finally dissolves back to the All's state of rest.

I do not understand why we have different red shifts. I am a believer in the Aether theories and I believe that there is much that is yet to be discovered as regards to the aether.Perhaps people like Tesla and Maxwell etc. understood more in this respect. I don't know. The ancients certainly did.Tesla was well aquainted with the Vedic principles.

I wish I could read Sanskrit and heiraglyphs without having to rely on translations.So that I could get some idea of the concepts the ancients had of the world.

But that diverts away from this present discussion.

[LukeSkywatcher]

To my mind a sigularity implies a border,a boundry.

A singularity has no dimentions:no length,width or height. It is so small infact that it shouldnt even really exist at all.

Do they even really exist? I'm not too sure but the idea of them makes a lot of things make more sense then they would be without singularities.

[gobes]

We have to deal with the fact that the human brain has evolved simply to help us deal with not only our day-to-day surroundings, but also the timeframe in which we live our lives... that being under a tiny 100 years.

The universe consists of immense distances and time frames which we could never comprehend. I mean... nobody can possible grasp just how long a million years is... let alone 4 or 14 bilion years! Or how far away 7 million light years is.

I find it incredible just how far our understanding has come... well not really mine ;-). I seriously doubt that humanity will ever come close to being able to understand or comprehend how the universe came into existence... but we should never stop trying.

Science will edge us closer and closer with every debunk theory.

[beamish]

To my mind a sigularity implies a border,a boundry.

A singularity has no dimentions:no length,width or height. It is so small infact that it shouldnt even really exist at all.

Do they even really exist? I'm not too sure but the idea of them makes a lot of things make more sense then they would be without singularities.

That's one of the benefits of accepting strings over point particles, singularities are no longer dimensionless, but extremely tightly compressed spaces that have a "volume" even if it is minuscule !

With Point Particle physics I believe infinities come into play - bearing in mind that point particles themselves have no volume value either

[Earl]

i think at present all that we are trying to achive is to make an acurate mathematical model for it all.

This will always change the more we find out, so in a way we will never know the facts as the more we know the more questions rise.