reply to post by pixiekaram
Not necessarily moronic. If the big bang created this universe, then for this universe there was no before. This universe didn't exist nor its laws of
physics. The reason we can't get energy out of nothing is because our laws of physics don't allow it, but our current laws and their limitations might
not have existed at the time.
When they say nothing came before the big bang, they might just mean nothing that makes sense in this current framework.
It's hypothesized that there are multiple universes and its also hypothesized that each universe has its own set of physics. While it is impossible to
get energy out of nothing with our current laws of physics, that may not always be the case. In this universe it may be very hard or impossible to
create something out of nothing. But in another universe it may have been very easy to create energy.
We don't know what came before the big bang, or if there was a before. This dimension may be the only one with time with our perception being changed
by the warping of space. Space/time. In other dimensions though there might not be time and everything may happen in an instant with another set of
physics that allow for energy to be easily created.
All the energy to create this universe could have been created in an instant and then exploded into mass creating gravity that started warping the
space around it creating a new set of physics where energy couldn't be created for free anymore and now time existed and we just got stuck with
whatever physics we got stuck with. This may also explain why we've only seen one big bang. It happened, and it caused our physics to change or come
into existence and the new physics didn't allow for such easy creation or use of energy therefore preventing another big bang from happening inside
One example is the speed of light and other constraints of the universe. They say after the big bang the universe expanded at a cosmic rate much
faster than the speed of light for a short time and then slowed down. Perhaps this is how we get a universe that is 92 billion light years across but
only 14 billion years old.
For a while certain things could travel much faster than the speed of light because our physics hadn't been set yet and as long as it has no mass it
still can. But as soon as the universe expanded enough for the current laws of physics to set in, all of a sudden nothing can travel faster than
light. But that doesn't mean it was always that way.
Also, it's hypothesized that 74% of the universe is dark energy and only 0.4% of the universe is made up of stars. That's a lot of energy. It's just
dark energy has no effect on us because it passes right through ordinary matter. You can't build anything to harness that energy because the energy
don't touch it. It'd be like building a windmill generator but the wind won't move the windmill. It passes right through it instead. Since the blades
don't turn, you can't get the energy.
If the physical properties of matter were just different enough that they could "touch" the dark energy it would be pretty easy to get something out
of nothing. You could do it all day long. But maybe we just got stuck with a set of physics that causes us not to be able to touch that energy. The
universe/multi-verse is filled with mostly energy. We just can't touch it. Since we can't we have the idea that producing energy is very hard. It may
actually be very easy to create certain kinds of energy, but we just can't harness it.
If there were membranes before the big bang it leads us right back the Watchmaker's analogy and you have to ask, well then where'd the membranes come
from? But that could be a whole different set of physics and there might not be any way to figure that out.
Energy wise the only difference between the two theories is this. If it was just a big bang, then the energy came from nowhere. If the membranes
collided to create the big bang, then the energy came from the collision. But where'd that energy come from? Nobody knows.
edit on 25-11-2010
by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-11-2010 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
25-11-2010 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)