ydoaPs Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 this is to stop the tangent in the parallel universe thread. the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. it says nothing of what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or where it came from. all it says is that at one point in universal history there was a rapid expansion from an extremely dense state. at this point, physics breaks down at the singularity, so right now we can't know much more than what i just said.
greentea Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 as far as I read it 'beginning' refers to a point in time. since there is no known 'before the big bang' for the reason time as we know it didn't exist, I see no problem with referring to the big bang as the beginning of the universe. still, I totally agree we know nothing about the thing that banged, etc.
Bettina Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 grr, time DID exist before the big bang. Grrrrr..... Now your saying it..... I finally agree with you! I always believed that there was time before the "big bang" even though I was taught that the big bang created space and time. For there to be a beginning, there had to be something before that even if it was a quark. Now, when others refer to the "big bang" don't they mean "a rapid expansion from an extremely dense state"? I would think so... Bettina
Bettina Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 well others also think [imath']E=mc^2[/imath] I hope it does, otherwise June 15th for you will be a letdown... Bettina
ydoaPs Posted June 18, 2005 Author Posted June 18, 2005 already signed up. [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2[/math]
greentea Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 I intentionally wrote "time as we know it". The extension of the concept of time "before the big bang" is a loose abstraction, IMO. The expression "before the big bang" implies a certain understanding of time. I do not mind speculating about it. However, since we go into semantics, I only want to note that the original reason for this thread is semantic. The Big Bang is/is not the "beginning of the universe" for a certain definition of time. So, I am just arguing by the same mode of thinking.
Bettina Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 already signed up. [math']E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2[/math] Good luck to you. Are you still going to be here on SFN? Bettina
calbiterol Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 What does the army have to do with [imath] E=mc^2 [/imath]?? I'm so confused.
gib65 Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 The theory of the Big Bang not only says that matter and energy went through a sudden expansion, but that space and time were also created in that instant, and spacetime is also continually expanding with all the matter and energy in the universe (that's actually how all the matter and energy are expanding). I see no reason to believe there had to be any time before the Big Bang, but I do understand that the human mind can't imagine anything without there being time to go along with it.
Ophiolite Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 navy, i am in the nuke program.Be afraid, be very afraid. Time to dust off the fall-out shelters. [seriously, good luck.] Back on topic: time and space began with the big bang. We do not know what, if anything, preceded it. This need not have been dimensional. We are too ignorant as a species to speculate meaningfully today on pre-big bang existence. You have to be agnostic on the character of pre-big bang. If you are definitive you have left the field of science and strayed into religion.
Bettina Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 navy, i am in the nuke program. Ok....My teacher said that popular belief is that our space and time orgininated at the point we refer to as the big bang. Whether there was anything before that is not known. (I still believe there was time before the big bang though) So....I don't know where to go from here. Bettina
calbiterol Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 navy, i am in the nuke program. Ahah! *Lightbulb* Doh! Good luck to you, try to stay active in the forums, though! (That probably won't happen, but it's the thought that counts, right? ) More on topic, though, I am interested by both the notion that there was no time before the Big Bang and by the notion that there was. Either way, it makes for some abstract thinking. IIRC, though, we really don't know, because everything as we know it brakes down at the singularity.
ydoaPs Posted June 18, 2005 Author Posted June 18, 2005 popular belief does not determine what the theory says. popular belief says that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, but, in reality, they are not.
J.C.MacSwell Posted June 18, 2005 Posted June 18, 2005 Be afraid' date=' be very afraid. Time to dust off the fall-out shelters. [seriously, good luck.'] Back on topic: time and space began with the big bang. We do not know what, if anything, preceded it. This need not have been dimensional. We are too ignorant as a species to speculate meaningfully today on pre-big bang existence. You have to be agnostic on the character of pre-big bang. If you are definitive you have left the field of science and strayed into religion. You extrapolate back anywhere close to the Big Bang and you've already strayed somewhere. Just my overpriced 2 cents worth.
Nicholas Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 No superverse. No multiverse. Where did the one universe come from? The creator. The universe had a begining in a finite past and has expanded only at a finite rate in otherwords its finite. There is only one universe. I ask a question for you to answer: Where is the universe at?
Guest -Loche- Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I honestly don't see how there could not have been time before the big bang. It just doesn't seem possible that everything "wasn't" and in a split second (which apparently that second could not have been there, if you're saying there wasn't time) and then everything "was." I just cannot fathom that concept of there being no time before the big bang. If there was nothing before the big bang, what started the big bang? If there was no time or anything before the big bang, there could not have been anything to start the big bang.
[Tycho?] Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 as far as I read it 'beginning' refers to a point in time. since there is no known 'before the big bang' for the reason time as we know it didn't exist, I see no problem with referring to the big bang as the beginning of the universe. still, I totally agree we know nothing about the thing that banged, etc. Yeah. If the big bang started as a singularity then we cannot know anything about the possible universe before that time with current theories. So sure there may have been time, but there is nothing to apply it to, since pre-big bang is just a huge question mark. I'd say that the big bang was the begining of "our" universe, leaving open the possibilty for others before/after/simultaneosly. This is given current theoretical descriptions of course.
Bettina Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 ']Yeah. If the big bang started as a singularity then we cannot know anything about the possible universe before that time with current theories. So sure there may have been time' date=' but there is nothing to apply it to, since pre-big bang is just a huge question mark. I'd say that the big bang was the begining of "our" universe, leaving open the possibilty for others before/after/simultaneosly. This is given current theoretical descriptions of course.[/quote'] I like what you said a lot. I always believed we simply "popped" in like a quark out of nothing, but the more I read, I wonder if our singularity was a very hot, very bright, and very dense visible point in "something" that was full of these singularities. Something then took place, like maybe two of these singularities colliding. This collision would have then caused the inflationary bubble (big bang) to take place and create "our" universe. Just my thought... Bettina
ydoaPs Posted June 26, 2005 Author Posted June 26, 2005 Something then took place, like maybe two of these singularities colliding. hmm, sounds like the braneworld theory. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html hour 3, chapter 6.
Bettina Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 hmm, sounds like the braneworld theory. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html[/url'] hour 3, chapter 6. What a great link! Thanks very much for it. I will be watching them all. Bettina
starbug1 Posted October 21, 2005 Posted October 21, 2005 After watching the NOVA video on the Big Bang, I thought more about the theory that there are several Big Bangs between different universes. This works in to parallel universes, and if there are more universes and myriad big bangs, how could you not believe there was time before the "Big Bang" that we know of. Basically everything was answered to a certain degree in the Elegent Universe video(s). If you haven't watched them yet, they are very interesting, if not educational. I think I'm going to read "The Elegant Universe" now, that did it for me.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now