Newbie
what do you guys think there was before the big bang??, IMO, there has to be someone, something!, you cant just say it was atoms, gases ect that made a explosion to form the universe, there has to be a creator of the creator, if you know what im saying, or am i just being thick lol.
Established Member
The question is meaningless. The event that created the universe also created space and time. Before time was created, there was no time, so there is no before the big bang.
Edit: It is sort of like asking what positive interger is less than zero. There are none.
Order of Kilopi
Hum,Originally Posted by Saluki
perhaps not.
i came across Roger Penroses new theory that describes how time becomes `meaningless` when all the particles of the universe decay, and resets the whole universe to create a new big bang - a sort of oscillating universe (without the collapse).
The new universe will have all the finely set conditions inherited from this universe.
Established Member
First of all, the big bang was not an "explosion," so I think you are just being thick.
Newbie
Big bang is just big bull
Established Member
Two broad schools of thought. (1) There was nothing before the big bang. Time itself started with the big bag. The common analogy is like saying what is north of the north pole. (2) The unvierse was in a completely different state of being. Do a search for "bane universe" or "bane theory". Totally bizarre.
Either one of these points still doesn't anwer your point that "there has to be a creator of the creator". Maybe that's true. Maybe the universe had to be created by something, such as God. But the problem with saying this is why stop there? What or who is the creator of God? Saying that God always existed to me makes no more or less sense than saying the universe came out of nothingness with the big bang.
Established Member
I am sure you really meant Brane Theory
And however funny the Big Bag might have been (My God, it's full of cash!) I shall correct it to Big Bang
The impossible often has a kind of integrity the merely improbable lacks. -Douglas Adams
Established Member
Well, now a few things occur to me. If the form of spacetime is intimately related to gravity, then we might need a theory of gravity over very small distances, areas, and volumes to be able to make convincing statements about the earliest times, eras during which our currently observable universe would have been very, very tiny. I love theory, but I would be most thrilled by some sort of experiment that could begin to probe or test small-scale gravity.I don't think about this question much because I don't have a clue. Not exactly an award winning post, I suppose.
GLAST may have the ability to test a prediction of quantum loop gravity, and the large hadron collider may turn up evidence of extra dimensions. In the meantime, I'm comfortable with just not knowing the answer to the OP. Let the equipment do the work for a while.
Edit: I completely botched my posting. I meant to quote an earlier post of mine and accidentally edited (to the extent of virtually rewriting) the earlier post instead.
So if you were reading this thread and this post seemed to suddenly undergo a drastic change, that is what happened.
Last edited by Fortunate; 2006-Jan-19 at 08:07 PM.
Order of Kilopi
Hum,
As an update to my earlier post:
A month or so ago i would have said that the universe was formed by the coming together of two five dimensional membranes ; the branes broke down into our space time, and created all the stuff we see today.
The mechanism is essentially a one shot universe. Once combined the two membranes cannot be separated. (there was no way to get rid of space and time).
Some people did suggest a while ago about how you could bud off another universe from our universe if the conditions were right ( ie inside black hole or in a very empty universe at the end).
While that was acceptable the `problem` was that the two original membranes were still stuck together.
Getting rid of particles and time may allows the two membranes to separate.
For example the photons in the universe would not need an extra brane (5 dimensions) to exist. they can be constrained on one brane.
So the two membranes a can separate (with traces of the photons) and recombine again.
The recombination would be as fine-tuned and highly ordered as our universe, perhaps due to the fossil traces of photons from the old universe...and with the creation of new particles time would be created again....
Established Member
I'm still stuck on the part about what all happened after the big bang. The before part makes my head hurt.
Order of Kilopi
Depends on how literal you want your definition of explosion to be. Sudden expansion on an incomprehensible scale in less than a second is an explosion, it just isn't the typical chemical reaction that the literal definition of explosion refers to.
Established Member
water, water , everywhere, and not a drop to drink....
Order of Kilopi
????????
Little Jimmie is no more
cause what he thought was H2O was H2SO4
Order of Kilopi
It is a good question, but will always be a matter of faith. If the Universe does occilate, the crunch between iterations will prevent information from being passed - therefore it is not something that can be found out by scientific inquiry.
It is the realm of faith, and scientists who claim to be able to answer are of the same ilk as fundamentalists who step all over science.
We can construct models, and make guesses; but observational limits make "knowing" impossible.
Order of Kilopi
Welcome to the board. Be sure to review our forum rules.
Established Member
It's interesting how the common sense view of time doesn't allow it to have a beginning. I wonder why that is. Could be becouse we hold no memories from the beginning of our conciousness, so there's no experience of suddenly comming into being.
Established Member
Well the problem is conservation of information, and it has been theorized that there is no information that can endure through the Big Bang. Whatever was there before (IF there was anything in any shape) would have been totally obliterated.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity the merely improbable lacks. -Douglas Adams
Established Member
True, but the original poster was implying just such a literal definition.
Order of Kilopi
See ...
This Is Why, you CAN'T Let your Competing Theorist, Name your Theory; The Name "Big Bang", Has Very Little to Do, With What Actually Happened ...
Also, Why Are we Taking The Time, to Argue this Qustion, Anyway, When The Only Two Dissenters, Aren't Taking The Time, to Listen?
Order of Kilopi
I see that now that you mention it.
Wylde99, when the BB occurred there weren't any atoms or gases yet. Those things came waaaay later.
Order of Kilopi
Well, 10-43 seconds later, there existed a gas of high-energy photons. I don't know if that's "waaay" later, but it is a gas (even if not your everyday one).
Order of Kilopi
I Don't Think, he's Coming Baack ...
Too Bad, too ...
Oh Well, Thanks Anyway, for The ILLUMINATING Information!
Established Member
Hmmm, interesting. I wonder if people suffering from amnesia are more ready to accept the concept of a beginning to time?
Order of Kilopi
How are you defining gas? I've heard it called plasma but not gas. I think a gas has to have molecules.
Established Member
High energy photons is just that, a cosmic soup of particles, it's by no means a gas.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity the merely improbable lacks. -Douglas Adams
Member
A plasma is just a gas in which the majority of atoms have been ionized.
Established Member
was there plasma at 10-43? I thought it was way too hot for even atoms to assemble. I don't see ionization happening as such a blazing heat for the lack of atoms themselves.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity the merely improbable lacks. -Douglas Adams
Established Member
Apparently, there was an era during which matter consisted of a "soup" of quarks and gluons. This "soup" has recently been recreated by the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. Rather than a quasi-plasma in which the quarks and gluons move more or less randomly, the results indicated something akin to a zero-viscosity liquid in which the particles moved in a somewhat synchronized manner. This era preceded the one in which protons and neutrons formed - no protons and neutrons, no ions. The "quark soup"-to-baryon phase transition occurred at about 10-5 seconds. On the one hand, we identify the Planck time as a time at which our knowledge of physics breaks down totally. In reality, there is a gap of many orders of magnitude between the Planck time and the times which our current level of understanding embrace. Maybe there was an era before even the quarks and gluons formed. How many distinct "eras" were there, and what were they like? There is a lot we don't know, and our ability to build bigger and better particle accelerators is limited - we can probably eventually eke out at most a few more orders of magnitude of energy.
Last edited by Fortunate; 2006-Jan-25 at 03:57 PM.
Order of Kilopi
A gas is generally defined by how it behaves. So, it's not that far out of line to call it a gas of photons, because it can be modeled like a gas, more or less. Similarly, you can model the electrons in a conductor as a free electorn gas confined to the object, because even though the object as a whole is a solid, the conduction electrons behave largely like a gas.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Kilopi
Geez settle down- he has done better than most by asking about it, and I think he has read everyones reply's too.
Big bang implies an explosion, even if it wasn't in the strictest sence of the word...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote