before the big bang,

yeah i was looking to discuss the root of the energy source, im very aware of theories with multiple bangs and crunches, i just want to discuss the initial energy source, and theories on how something can be the source, without bieng infinate, its hard to comprehend i was hoping some people migh have some good ideas,


peace

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

first thing that we know is fact,

energy cannot be destroyed only transformed,
so a big bang that created everything cant be possible, there has to have been something that set the bang off, existance cannnot just come out of a random explosion that had no reason to happen,


the only way a single bang created the universe, is if something liek god just said let there be light and created an explosion in an untouched dimension type thing, and then just stood back and watched for billions of years (he would have alot of time on his hands) but then that still dosent explain anything, because god was already existing and as universe means everything, something was already existing wich means the bang wasnt the creation of existance, it was just the creation of our little existance inside a greater one,


so then if there was a higher force, what created that, what im asking is what was the first glimpse of anythign whatsoever, god couldent just be infinate right? isnt infinity impossible? so whats tarted everything? if there was a start?

and yeah tab its a hard question, but theories dont harm anyone, and its good to have a challenge as a collective,



peace

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God does NOT follow any physical laws, and surely not those "invented" by man! Ye're trying to apply laws to god ...as if he'd have to follow them, he doesn't.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm kind of under the impression that the life of the universe begins when the ultimate black hole explodes and the energy cools down and turns into matter. The matter expands until gravity accumulates and pulls it all together again back to a single point. And then it explodes again. And the cycle repeats itself forever. So what happened before the big bang? The big contraction. Makes sense to me, but then again, I don't really know anything about astronomy or physics for that matter.

 

But WHAT was there to contract? And if there was something there in the contraction, where did it come from? One can't have "contraction" without something to contract ...where did it come from in the first place?

Baron Max

 

"But WHAT was there to contract?"

The previous iteration of the universe.

"where did it come from in the first place?"

I guess my answer to that is, nowhere. The energy came from nowhere. It was always just... there.

No beginning - no end. Just iteration after iteration, 'ya hear?

 

That's kinda' tough on the old brain, ain't it? We humans have an idea of something "beginning", ya' know? It's kinda' difficult to consider that all that energy was just sitting out there waiting to expand or contract.

No matter what you say, it had to have a beginning ....and that causes the brain to do a bit of pondering, don't it?

Baron Max

 

Asking what happened before time began is like asking what is under the center of the Earth.

To me, the big question is "did time begin at the Big Bang singularity?"

Did time begin at all?

It's really a philosophical question, and it traps our human minds - we shy away from possibility of time beginning, but we also shy away from a past eternity. It's not acceptable to our intuition for time to begin, and it's not acceptable for it not to begin.

A number of very bright philosophers have tried tackling this question. It's not surprising that at least one (Tomas Aquinas) considered it to be a direct proof of the existence of God.

 

Another way to look at it is to imagine the universe and all time pass and future as just one big static block. We are simply moving through this block.

In other words the universe just is. It has no time, thus no beginning or end, nor the unfathomable concept of infinity.

Also you can use the paradox of the beginning of time as the always approachable (if we revers time that is) but never reachable. Like the speed of light, we can alway go a little closer to the speed of light but never reach it.


Just my opinion.

 

Standard Big Bang theory has been sometimes dubbed a "religious theory", because it requires an act of creation. Many people don't like the idea of a sudden beggining out of nowhere, and try to develop quantum gravity theories, in which the Universe existed before the Big Bang, in fact it has existed forever. LQC is one of them, I don't have any problem imagining that the Universe has existed forever, or will exist forever into the future. Brane cosmology is another theory proposing a pre-big bang universe, in fact one of the explanations put forward by brane cosmology is the "Ekpyrotic Scenario": the assumption that our Universe was created after the collision of 2 branes

 

Well, the problem that I have with that is that it pretty much defies basic physics and scientific logic. I.e., it's not much different to saying that "god" has been around forever and god doesn't follow the laws of physics. Aren't you just making that transfer/translation? And if so, why not just say "God did it."?

Baron Max

 

No one has yet to answer my posts.

Standard Big Bang Theory states that the universe started from and will end in an infinitesimal small point-space in matter, energy and time. This infinitesimal point contains all the matter and energy in the universe and then - bang! - again we go.

 

Well.
Allow me to retort.

Their is a problem with your stating that this is Standard Big Bang Theory. The problem is that the last I heard on the subject, there wasn't enough mass in the universe to cause a Big Crunch. There has been much muddling and fuddling and fiddling with dark matter, dark energy, etc... since that time, but even so I've yet to hear a decisive statement that a Big Crunch is assured. As far as I know, the 'general consensus' is that the universe keeps expanding forever and suffers a final whimpering heat death some countless eons in the future ('death' being a misnomer, of course. More like really boring eternity of particles so far apart that nothing ever happens....)


Anyway.
M-Theory has some other ideas on what took place. A collision between two branes (our universe being one of them.) I forget what they call this. Epapyroclastic or some weird-ass name like that. Someone here knows the term, I'm sure. Hawking was a big proponent of this at one time. I don't know what he says about it lately though. Hawking's not one to stand still.

 

But then you're questioning the Big Bang Theory to begin with, but this thread is accepting it from the start and asking "before the big bang."? Your comment is a good one but belongs on a different thread.

 

Who's questioning the Big Bang?
Both scenarios which I have posted have a Big Bang.
The only theory I'm questioning is the Big Crunch. Which isn't part and parcel of the Big Bang.

 

Okay, I see your point. You're stating that there was a Big Bang initially and that now the universe keeps expanding.

You state that "The problem is that the last I heard on the subject, there wasn't enough mass in the universe to cause a Big Crunch."

This is incorrect. According to gravitational pulls observed in the universe, we have not been able to "account" for the additional matter needed in the universe to explain this. Just because we cannot see this matter or that that seen gravitational pull in the universe is not yet fully explained does not suggest that the universe will expand forever.

"The universe today appears to be dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy. Approximately 70% of the total energy density of today's universe is in this form. This component of the universe's composition is revealed by its property of causing the expansion of the universe to deviate from a linear velocity-distance relationship by causing spacetime to expand faster than expected at very large distances. Dark energy in its simplest formation takes the form of a cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition is unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the standard model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically....Einstein's theory of gravity predicts a gravitational singularity where densities become infinite. To resolve this paradox, a theory of quantum gravity is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

 

"Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

"The Big Crunch theory is a symmetrical view of the life of the universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory postulates that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin a cosm-wide contraction.

It is unknown what the end result would be: a simple extrapolation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales quantum effects should be considered. Some people use this opportunity to postulate an oscillatory universe, that starts again to expand. Indeed, if symmetry is to be followed, it is meaningless to make a distinction between a Big Crunch and a Big Bang, and so any endpoint may progress to a new universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

 

the theory witht he branes still dosent explain the initial beggining, (if there was one). stating events that could have happened is just like the big bang theory, it has flaws, it still dosent tackle the actual beggining of existance, if things are banging or things are colliding, or things are crunching, something had to make them bang, make them collide, make them crunch, these theorys do hold there own explaining after events that could have, would have etc,but they dont tackle the real question i think more focus needs to be put ont his initial question, instead of sidestepping it with theories of after events,

ive never believed in god or been religious, ive always been spiritual but not religious, but ims tarting to think the answer is "god" or something of this nature, seriously all other explanations dont add up, but if there were an infinite energy bieng such as god, it would explain alot more,


why anything atall? existance is here for a reason, it couldent have just sprouted out of non existances ass, i dont place all my eggs in one basket, or truely believe there is a "god" i do think daoist philosophies could be correct though on anouther note, but anything can be correct, the universe could just be gods/many gods television box,


peace


peace,

 

this is only a fact within our universe.big crunches are irrelevant to this discussion.i drove myself close to insanity thinking about this question a couple of years ago and came to the conclusion that such things are so far out of our own experiences that we cannot grasp them.i mean,i can talk about electrons but when i look at my hand i find it hard to visualise atoms and likewise when i look at the stars i find it very hard to even think about the distances involved.im not saying its pointless to think about but its definately pointless to stress over it as none of us will ever know the true beginning of our existence(and by that i mean the beginning of the chain of events leading to it).

 

belief that god created the universe and that it explains everything is just a cop-out to me.

what seems more likely is that everything has a legitimate cause, and that this chain of cause and effect span infinitely in every direction. you think that we're wasting our time worrying about what started our universe instead of what was behind it all. well i think you're wasting your time thinking that god started it all because, even if god did start the universe, we would most likely never know for sure, so what difference does it make? what we are able to know is if there was a big bang, under what circumstances it happened, what caused the big bang, and then we will try to figure out the details concerning the cause of the big bang. and so on, each time discovering something new about what caused our universe to come into existance. but i believe that we will never find the ultimate cause to our existance.