Big Bang Question

I have a question regarding the Big Bang that has recently been troubling me.

Before the Big Bang, everything was supposidly condensed into one point. Does this mean that there could be an infinite number of big bangs waiting to happen right now?

Every point in our universe could contain infinite matter just waiting to be unlocked by whatever process kick started the Big Bang as we know it.

Maybe 15 billion years ago, there was a scientist experimenting with parallel universes or some other process that unlocked the big bang. Could that possibly explain where all the matter in this universe came from? Instead of it being compacted into one small point, maybe the big bang is just a rip between universes where matter from one universe is being forced into a new universe.

I am having troubles getting the thoughts I have written down, but I hope this makes a little sense.

I'm highly skeptical about the validity of the big bang theory at all. A team of scientists recently failed to find the expected intergalactic microwave shadows that would have resulted from the Big Bang's afterglow. But if the Big Bang did not happen, we really are at a loss to explain how exactly the universe was born. It's a great time to be a scientist!

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by searcus
Before the Big Bang, everything was supposidly condensed into one point. Does this mean that there could be an infinite number of big bangs waiting to happen right now?

Or already happening right now, concurrently with the expansion of our own universe. The only thing about this is notion is that it doesn't matter. The possibility of there being an infinite number of parallel universes is just an intellectual curiosity, and doesn't amount to any more than a religious concept, something you believe in without any particular proof.

The problem is inherent with the way we conceptualize time. Once you step outside the temporal framework of our universe, time doesn't mean anything. Everything and nothing happens never and simultaneously. Cause preceeds effect.

Even the initial microseconds of the blast of matter from virtuality to reality, everything is moving so fast, a microsecond could be the equivalent of trillions of the years we experience now. And as the universe continues to expand (probably backwards and forwards in time), time itself is slowing down, so eventually everything that ever happened will happen in an instant.

It's all messed up, and as a result, doesn't matter.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Nohup]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
But if the Big Bang did not happen, we really are at a loss to explain how exactly the universe was born.

At this point, I'm leaning towards the idea that somehow we (or some kind of living, conscious being elsewhere in the universe) basically "thought" it into existence, in the past, from the future. That is, something imagined what the universe would be like in the past, and created it from a virtual state by observation, in a quantum-mechanical way.

So the universe was essentially "bootstrapped" into existence by consciousness(es) working in reverse time, and the universe continues to expand both forward and backward into time as we continue to re-imagine it doing so. In a way, that basically makes us our own Creator, over the course of time.

Just a stray idea. No way to prove it, or course.

reply to post by Nohup


Yeah, that's basically what Everett thought. Most mainstream physicists have rejected it because it's circular reasoning to the extreme. I personally think it's hogwash. It doesn't fit with the much more popular "many worlds" interpretation, which postulates that in the vast majority of universes, sentience doesn't exist at all.

reply to post by uberarcanist


My understanding is that is the current idea at least a year ago was that not matter ie nothing the size of the tip of a pencil exploded. Laughable to me but I do spend the time to at least hear it out.

reply to post by Canada_EH


I think a lot of physicists want to create the illusion that they've actually figured something out so they create half-baked theories that are so far out-there (like the big bang) that they hope and pray that science will never in their lifetimes be able to actually test them. Unfortunately, as our friends in Huntsville have demonstrated, half-bakedness does not last very long these days.

We still have absolutely no idea how all this stuff got here.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by Canada_EH

 

I think a lot of physicists want to create the illusion that they've actually figured something out so they create half-baked theories that are so far out-there (like the big bang) that they hope and pray that science will never in their lifetimes be able to actually test them. Unfortunately, as our friends in Huntsville have demonstrated, half-bakedness does not last very long these days.

We still have absolutely no idea how all this stuff got here.

actually hit a point there that most people don't science is being able to test something and replicate the end result with some sort of regualarity. A theory is not science and those who choose to "believe" are putting faith in those who have said it.

Originally posted by searcus

Maybe 15 billion years ago, there was a scientist experimenting with parallel universes or some other process that unlocked the big bang. Could that possibly explain where all the matter in this universe came from?

Experimenting? Probably not.
This sounds like the story of creation, Genesis, to be exact.

He/They knew what they were doing.

No pre-schoolers need reply.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I personally think it's hogwash. It doesn't fit with the much more popular "many worlds" interpretation, which postulates that in the vast majority of universes, sentience doesn't exist at all.

Well, there may be many universes theorized, but as far as I know only one has been proven (relatively) conclusively to exists. This one right here. But as soon as somebody shows me another universe with nobody sentient in it, I'll consider it. Although since these other universes have to be perceived in some way, that pretty much automatically makes them subject to and a result of our imagination/observation. Seems to me that a universe can't actually exist without somebody observing it in some way.

But I don't know how such a notion could be tested. Certainly not with a mathematical theory. Mathematics is only a vague and inaccurate shadow of reality.

reply to post by Nohup


Riddle me this...who observed the SPECIFIC events necessary for the first sentient creature to evolve?

Well if it is possible to travel through time? If there are multiple time lines? Then we may not yet, have been through the moment in time when a scientist creates our universe in a lab. This is because that scientist may invent the universe in our future in one of those coliders, but the big bang manifests in the past. Thus creating the events that caused us to be here in this moment...

We COULD be our own creators.

Tat moment when he creates the big bang in the past could also be our end moment in the future...

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Xeven]

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Xeven]

reply to post by Xeven


Yeah, I knew someone was going to bring up time travel, the most heavily debunked concept in all physics...

www.livescience.com...

And, the canned answer is..."but what if we don't understand physics properly?"
Well, then be my guest and come up with a better understanding of physics, but until you can do that, you're wrong and I'm right.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by Xeven

 

Yeah, I knew someone was going to bring up time travel, the most heavily debunked concept in all physics...

www.livescience.com...

And, the canned answer is..."but what if we don't understand physics properly?"
Well, then be my guest and come up with a better understanding of physics, but until you can do that, you're wrong and I'm right.

Are you sure time travel is not possible?

www.physorg.com...

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Riddle me this...who observed the SPECIFIC events necessary for the first sentient creature to evolve?

I don't know. It could have been you. It could have been some planet-sized slime creature in some distant galaxy. Any conscious creature with the ability to perceive and imagine could have done it, maybe without even knowing it. Maybe in a dream.

Even the American military recognized that remote viewing works (although they could never make it practical), and long-term tests concluded it was not temporally dependent. Research done on micropsychokinesis noted an extremely small but measurable effect that allows a conscious mind to move small objects. It's not surprising. After all, we use our consciousness to move tiny objects like photons and molecules all the time. Think of a shiny, red apple. There. You did it.

Combine the ability to move tiny objects (perhaps from virtual states to real states by collapsing a quantum wave function) with the ability to shift our consciousness independent of time, and you have a formula for all kinds of creative activity, even by us small-brained humans. Who knows what a creature out there might be able to do with a brain the size of a solar system.

Who created all this stuff? I'm thinking that we all did, and are still doing it, forward and backward in time. All living things combine their thoughts and perceptions and imaginations to make it happen, building it up from realized quantum potentialities.

reply to post by Xeven


I'm not sure, but the prevailing and well-thought-out conclusion by most physicists is that warping space time in such a fashion is impossible.

Read this section of wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

especially relevant is the subsection titled "special spacetime geometries"

reply to post by Nohup


I'm not so sure that there was ever any belief by anyone in the government (aside from some true believers) that remote viewing worked, though I invite you to present evidence to the contrary.

"At the request of the Army Research Council, the National Research Council conducted an evaluation in 1987 (results published in 1988) to examine the effectiveness of various "human performance" technologies, among them remote viewing. The NRC's chief psi investigators, Ray Hyman and James Alcock, reported that they found no legitimate validation of any psi phenomenon, to include remote viewing (Druckman & Swets 1988, Smith 2005). Others have said that the remote viewing sessions often produce information which is vague, and much of which is erroneous.[16] For example, the 1995 report for the American Institute for Research "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications" by Mumford, Rose and Goslin, contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers 'had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand.'"

-en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I'm not sure, but the prevailing and well-thought-out conclusion by most physicists is that warping space time in such a fashion is impossible.

Working with the prevailing definition of time, it's generally accepted that the only way to really warp spacetime is with gravity, and that action and information can't exceed lightspeed. That's certainly true. If you work from the assumptions, you naturally wouldn't expect "time travel" to be possible.

But the funny thing is, I'm not aware that there is a good, solid definition of time, to begin with. Physicists look at it as a line on the bottom of a graph. Is that really what it is? I don't know.

Richard Feynman is generally considered to have been a pretty smart guy. In his subatomic transforms, time is irrelevant. It's not even a line on his graph. Once you get things bouncing in and out of virtuality, it doesn't matter if this "thing" (which you might think of as a point-of-view) happens now or a trillion years from now or 13 billion years ago. It's all the same thing. So when we're not really talking about warping spacetime or "time travel," because it doesn't make any sense in that context. That's not how it's being defined -- if at all.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers 'had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand.'"

The main reason it was essentially useless to the Army was because that even with a solid hit, obtained against ridiculuously high odds, it still had to be confirmed with direct, on the ground recon. Admittedly, the effect is incredibly small, it's very inconsistent, and good hits are rare. Fortunately, the initial bump of the universe, and from dead to alive, from virtual to real didn't/doesn't /won't have to be big, consistent, or common.

reply to post by Nohup


You're entitled to your own opinion, but I'm going to have to see something more solid and consistent before I'll believe in RV.