It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New theory of before the big bang(article)

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   


String theorists Neil Turok of Cambridge University and Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton believe that the cosmos we live in was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes (which they define as three-dimensional branes plus time) that were attracted toward each other by the leaking of gravity out of one of the universes.
In their view of the universe the complexities of an inflating universe after a Big Bang are replaced by a universe that was already large. flat, and uniform with dark energy as the effect of the other universe constantly leaking gravity into our own and driving its acceleration. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets.

Turok and Steinhardt were inspired by a lecture given by Burt Ovrut who imagined two branes, universes like ours, separated by a tiny gap as tiny as 10-32 meters. There would be no communictaion between the two universes except for our parallel sister universe's gravitational pull, which could cross the tiny gap.

Orvut's theory could explain the effect of dark matter where areas of the universe are heavier than they should be given everything that's present. With their theory, the nagging problems surrounding the Big Bang (beginning from what, and caused how?) are replaced by an eternal cosmic cycle where dark energy is no longer a mysterious unknown quantity, but rather the very extra gravitational force that drives the universe to universe (brane-brane) interaction.

Sourc e

I found this interesting. No new evidence is present, rather, what is offered is perhaps a more satisfying interpretation of existing evidence. The new theory seems to handle some of the difficulties associated with modern cosmology better than the big bang theory, namely the apparent weakness of gravity relative to the other fundamental forces, dark energy, and the eternal question, "well, what came before that?"

There is no argument here that the big bang is wrong, and in fact a big bang of sorts would still have occurred. According to this new theory, however, the bang was not spontaneous and was not the begining of all reality, rather it was just the begining of our universe.


[edit on 2/20/10 by OnceReturned]




posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


This is interesting.

I question why Ovrut only envisions 2 Universes (branes). Upon this theory, one could speculate that there are multiple Universes pulling on each other not just 2. I believe Parallels are indeed plausible, and I use the term parallel relatively, not as in realities or dimensions.

This is what I mean...

It just stands to reason, if planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies can all differ in size and variants, then why can't that fall in line with the size of an individual universe (brane).

Either way it is an interesting theory to ponder, and given the apparent size of our universe and our infancy in understanding it, to know that there could be others as vast or more vast, or even less vast than ours...well that friends would indeed be an amazing fruition.

S&F for the thread



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
There is no argument here that the big bang is wrong, and in fact a big bang of sorts would still have occurred. According to this new theory, however, the bang was not spontaneous and was not the begining of all reality, rather it was just the begining of our universe.


...like the start of "time" for a particular universe, which means that there exist more then one time line... one for each universe.

Compare:

"In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the Earth and Heavens..."

with:

"For every ordinary time line, We created mass and energy..."

Bible proves science and science proves the bible. Yes, got to look beyond the words and sometimes at the elements of the page itself.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 



Compare:

"In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the Earth and Heavens..."

with:

"For every ordinary time line, We created mass and energy..."


That's not a good comparison, your biblical quote implies there was a "creation", or 'something from nothing', if you will. Mass / energy, relatively the same thing, can created by each other, was not "created", if I had to give my brief and not that great understanding of the big bang theory as a response to your statement: Starting from the singularity, which contained the super heated & dense 'ball' of prematerial energy, which contained everything, time, space, etc which cooled to be the first atomic particles. As in, nothing was "created", per se, from nothing, it existed in an extremely compact state, then expanded.


Bible proves science and science proves the bible. Yes, got to look beyond the words and sometimes at the elements of the page itself.


Science disproves the bible, unless you move the goalposts and say it was just a metaphor or something. The bible proves nothing, certainly not science either. If you're going to say you have to look beyond the words, you have to admit the words were not literal, not true to begin with. As in if your comparing God as being a comparison to the big bang theory, you have to admit it was the big bang theory, not God, which was the beginning of everything.

Hopefully that didn't come out to bad, late night posts



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Well if we want to get technical, the Hebrew verse in Genesis could also be read as following....

'God 'filled' the havens and the earth'......or.....'God 'fattened' the heavens and the earth.

The word 'bara' is the Hebrew word that has been translated as 'created'.....but there does not seem to be a actual word for created in Hebrew.

'bara' was also used to describe how the 'fat' of an animal 'filled' the animal. So this is where I get the idea that 'bara' can also mean 'to fill or to fatten'.

In that sense....its not talking about something coming from nothing....it is talking about something filling a existent 'something'.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
My whole problem w/ the Big Bang was what came before. This is definitely more in line w/ what I think could have happened. My thoughts are not so absolute though. I think these cycles would more likely occur to sections of the universe as the energy to maintain separation declines enough to cause the events leading to collision. This renewal process is currently and continually happening in different parts of the universe since time immemorial.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Every single thing in the Universe follows a law of cause and effect...I dont think there is any reason to assume that something came from nothing. I think all signs show us that there is a recycling going on with all energy. The cause of this Universe could of simply been the electric pulse from another.

In a womb, an electric pulse is what generates 'life' to begin.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I read about this theory a while ago and I like it.

Apparently the maths associated with this theory is almost identical to current big bang cosmology maths i.e. it works just as well and gives both theories equal merit.

I tend to feel our counterpart would consist of antimatter, hence it's repulsive gravity "leaking" into ours. It would also help explain why our universe is almost completely dominated by normal matter. The other brane would, in effect, be our equal opposite.

Would they have white holes? Would the other brane be shrinking at the same rate as ours? Would their "dark matter/energy" be our gravity. Would their eggheads be at a complete loss to explain why their universe is shrinking? Do they have mysterious "light energy"? Could the Chinese be on to something with this yin/yang idea? There are so many other little things like this that make this theory appealing. While I was being a little silly there, my point is serious.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
That's not a good comparison, your biblical quote implies there was a "creation", or 'something from nothing', if you will.


Not at all.

The quote stated "We," as if we already existed to do such process, so there is no 'something from nothing' assumption being made. It appears by the rest of your comment that you didn't notice I took a typical monotheistic 'God' out of the equation, and I replaced it with an every day Homer Simpson that works at a nuclear power plant.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I find this interesting as well. Makes me think of the sacred geometry form known as the vesica piscis. The vesica piscis is sometimes called the "womb of the universe" which is quite fitting if the birth of our universe was caused by the eventual collision/overlapping of two pre-existing universes. Also an interesting reflection of the classical regenerative paradigm (from the combination of two distinct things comes one new thing). Also, in the reverse direction, this is a bit like cell division and binary numbering; 1,2,4,8,16,32, and on. Neat.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by rleexray
 


My question is, does anyone actually know if there was nothing here before the big bang?

Maybe the big bang wiped out another universe where we now reside.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Hung Lo
 


Well truth is we will never know. Maybe in the future, but we will most likely never know what came before the big bang in our lifetime at least. Only theories. It is too hard to define a singularity. Our brain isn’t made to grasp concepts like infinity. That’s my opinion at least



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Except that the people that created the bible had 0% understanding of the universe's space and time. If you are going to argue that they were semi-gods and had all the answers, then why didn't they explain the creation of the universe in a more clear sense? They would have known exactly how it happened, yet, they couldn't even contemplate the universe as we know it today. They could only explain the creation of Earth and Heaven, which was the few stars they could see.

Only could a Christian warp a scientifical theory into the broad terms of the bible and pretend their ideology is still relevant. Maybe, you should do some research on how the book you base your life on came to be 1300-1500 years after the supposive death of christ and how many demented minds altered it before the first common person was allowed to have one. These are most likely the same people that insisted the Earth was flat.


To the real topic. I like the theory, but I'd have to do some more research to fully understand it. I think we are at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the understanding our universe, plus the other universes, and whatever else is out there.

What do we call the collective universe if their are multiple universes? Right now we consider all the galaxies, matter, space, and time the universe. But if there are multiple universes, what do we call it?

Good question uberl33t! Why does he conisder just two universes? If two are possible why can't there be more?

I have always thought that universes possibly orbit each other, similar but not identical to, the way galaxies orbit each other. It just baffles the mind.
S&F



[edit on 21-2-2010 by tooo many pills]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hung Lo
 



does anyone actually know if there was nothing here before the big bang?


The big bang theory explains that we came from a single starting point, the primeval atom and all that goodness, and then expanded outwards, as we are supposedly doing today. Asking if there was anything "here" before the big bang doesn't really make sense, as everything "here" originated and expanded from that primeval atom. You're basically asking what was in the universe which did not exist yet, at a time before there was time.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


Every single thing in the Universe follows a law of cause and effect...I dont think there is any reason to assume that something came from nothing.



This is not so. What are thoughts?. Do they have any attributes of matter? What the bible implies is that God willed matter into existence. The same way we will our actions into existence. Ex: The movement of our arms and hands to produce something. This is why any theory that suggests that something cannot come from nothing is wrong. The bible proves this over and over. (God is spirit)

[edit on 21-2-2010 by oliveoil]

[edit on 21-2-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 




Compare: "In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the Earth and Heavens..." with: "For every ordinary time line, We created mass and energy..." Bible proves science and science proves the bible. Yes, got to look beyond the words and sometimes at the elements of the page itself.


This transcription of Genesis book, that actually is a clone of Sumerian "Enuma Elish", isn't referring to "God" as a possible intelligent cosmic creator/manager energy, but to the "Elohim" that means "Group of deities", plural, not singular. I feel comfy to bring here, Zecharia Sitchin and his translations of Sumerian Legacy. The Elohim would be indeed, the Anunnaki, an extraterrestrial race from Orion Constellation, that colonized Earth half million years ago. According to original Sumerian Genesis. This dialogue about "the creation of Earth and Sky by Elohim" is referring to the set up of their ancient bases on Earth (ERIDU and EDIN in Persian Gulf), Mars, Moon and the orbital space station. The "seven days of creation" mentioned in the Bible, is an 100% twisted version of seven SARS, the measure of time, based in the orbital period of Nibiru, the supposed brown dwarf's cluster inhabited by the Anunnaki. 1 SAR = 3.600 years
Thus, all Earth/Sky colonies were assembled in 25.200 years.


[edit on 21-2-2010 by ucalien]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hung Lo
reply to post by rleexray
 


My question is, does anyone actually know if there was nothing here before the big bang?



Right now we cannot answer that question. The big bang was a singularity, which by definition has values of infinity for some of its physical properties. This essentially means that physics cannot handle it, we don't understand the physics of singularities. Since our equations break down at the singularity, we cannot use them to look back any farther than the big bang. Therefore there is no way to know if this way the begining, or reset, or if there was anything before it.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This would further support the multiverse concept for starters. But its a pretty tough one to understand given all these radical ideas that's been thrown out there.

So when did time itself actually begin?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
We, the thinkers on ATS, are way ahead of these scientists. We already postulated the leak theory:

In ___ there are many dimensions. When three of these dimensions touched, they created a singularity, which began magnetically drawing these three dimensions into themselves, creating a focal point for this growing singularity. This might be compared to a leak, caused by the rupture of these three dimensions at a point. Hence, you have three dimensions and time. Or, God made it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Their theory requires that there are other universes touching. Mine does not need other universes, just dimensions in planar form.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 



What are thoughts?


Electrical / chemical energy / neurons / brain cells


Do they have any attributes of matter


Yes.


What the bible implies is that God willed matter into existence. The same way we will our actions into existence


Are you saying there is nothing happening in our body that is making us move other than this magical force? For example, I'm pretty sure motor neurons control the nervous system which controls our muscle movement which makes our bones / limbs move. The only "willing" that is going on is our brain sending impulses for things to move, either voluntary or involuntarily.


This is why any theory that suggests that something cannot come from nothing is wrong





God is spirit


Can you prove the existence of "spirit" or a "spirit"?



new topics




 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join