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.

 

What happened before the big bang?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa


So those virtual particles are real (in the sense that anything in quantum physics is 'real', that it) and if they are real, then there is no doubt what-so-ever that the universe most certainly CAN come from nothing.

That guy is not wrong.


Ha, I am so confident you and that guy are wrong, and im sure my confidence is not in vain. Just to end this quickly; Define 'nothing'.




posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
somebody lit a very big fuse?




Yep. And when the firecracker explodes, all of its contents race away from the center. Physicists should be looking for a huge space of nothing where the Big Bang originally banged. The one thing that stops the contents of the firecracker from flying forever outward is gravity. In space, however, there is no resistance, so all of the matter would just keep flying outward, leaving the original, and emptied, blast zone also expanding outward.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
somebody lit a very big fuse?




Yep. And when the firecracker explodes, all of its contents race away from the center. Physicists should be looking for a huge space of nothing where the Big Bang originally banged. The one thing that stops the contents of the firecracker from flying forever outward is gravity. In space, however, there is no resistance, so all of the matter would just keep flying outward, leaving the original, and emptied, blast zone also expanding outward.


Not really, because (as the theory goes) the Big Bang was NOT an explosion of matter into empty space. "Space" did not exist before the Big Bang -- empty of otherwise. There was no "space" for the matter to exploding into.

The Big Bang is what created that space -- it created the "fabric of the universe". The Big Bang not only created matter and energy, it also created a place for that matter and energy to be. As this space (i.e., the universe) expands, everything in the universe (generally, on a large scale) is moving away from each other.

Here is a 2-D illustration of that expansion. Think of these two images as being just small parts of flat planes that extend in all directions:




As you can see, the second illustration shows expansion, but that expansion is NOT from any central point. No matter where you are on that plane (pick any circle in the illustration), the expansion looks the same -- everything is moving away at the same rate from any given point on that plane, and not from any one central point.

Therefore, as we view the universe from Earth, it seems that everything (on the large scale) is moving away from us, as if Earth is the center of that expansion. However, if we went to another planet in another galaxy 1 Billion LY away and looked at the expansion, it would seem THAT planet is the center of the expanding universe.

The expansion is happening everywhere and equally.




edit on 6/18/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Infinity! The big bang theory is a babylonian / sumerian story. The truth is, as hard as it is to grasp for some, that there is NO beginning and NO end.........just change.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elliot
The truth is, as hard as it is to grasp for some, that there is NO beginning and NO end.........just change.


The truth is , which might be equally hard for some to grasp , no one knows for sure either wise this wouldn't be a debate among the scientific community nor a theory
.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I think your diagram explanation would be more accurate to the theory if the first image was 0 dimensions. And then you can show how that, started expanding. And then you can discuss how in any 3-d space the totality of 'stuff' taking up that 3-d space will naturally and unavoidably be taking on a 3-d 'shape'. Then you can discuss how of course one can trace around a 3-d shapes circumference all theyd like, but 3-d shapes do have boundaries, edges. So logically this implies the universe at any given time has boundaries. And if a shape has boundaries, it has a relative center. And if all the 'stuff' was in one dimensionless point, and then it inflated and expanded, in order to be accurate to your diagram and seemingly the theory, the 'stuff' at the center of the 3-d shape, would have to relatively 'NOT MOVE AT ALL" compared to the 'stuff' at the boundary which in time has moved, relative to the center, "a long ways". What is to be made of this discrepancy? Or does the theory embrace the logical conclusion that there are galaxies in the center of the universe that are not moving at all?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





Then you can discuss how of course one can trace around a 3-d shapes circumference all theyd like, but 3-d shapes do have boundaries, edges.


Not necessarily. An infinite 3D space has no boundaries. Or a 3D space that curves back on itself so that if you go into one direction you return where you started, like a being on the surface of a fourdimensional sphere. This 3D shape has finite volume, yet still no boundaries.

Question: our universe seems infinite, can a zero dimensional point expand into infinite 3D space? Wouldnt it take infinite time to do so?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


As Maslo said above, a shape that curves back on itself would not have boundaries per se.

Let's expand my illustrations to be the surface of a balloon (just the surface - NOT inside the balloon or above the balloon's surface. In this illustration, those places do no exist. The entire universe is the surface of the balloon.)

As you blow up a balloon, any two given spots on the surface of that balloon would be moving away from each other as that surface expands. There is no center of expansion; it doesn't matter which points you pick -- the expansion always looks the same from any and every point on the balloon.

Again, we are using a 2-D plane to attempt to explain 3-D space, so the balloon analogy is not perfect, but it gets the basic idea across of how a space with now edges can expand from from no specific center point. The Big Bang is the expansion of space itself, not only the matter in space.

The Big Bang was not an expansion of stuff INTO our universe, because our universe did not exist before the big bang (there was no universe for stuff to expand into). It was an expansion OF our universe.



edit on 6/18/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Its such an interesting topic to me!

First though, it is obviously difficult for any one of us to claim that we actually know, with certainty, how it all happened. That is not satisfying, for sure, but that lack of satisfaction is the overall drive for science itself. So, in a way, its a good thing even if it isnt specific to one event such as the "big bang."

A lot of what I have to say has already been covered, but we all like to give our perspective, right?
This is all just opinion.

I think the most important consideration is that space-time may not be at all relevant outside of the physical relativistic universe. If this is the case, then "beginning/end" and "before/after" are completely and totally irrelevant. They flat out do not apply, and trying to apply them might be a lot like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. This idea alone, if valid, renders a lot of our comprehension next to useless, as our thought processes are based in space-time and the physical universe. Physically comprehending something that does not have the same constraints is quite literally impossible.

That doesnt mean it isnt fun to roll that rock up that endless hill


The way I see it, which is undoubtedly incorrect and at absolute best, incredibly limited.. space-time is a medium much like water. When a force strikes the medium of water, a lot of interesting things happen depending on variables. I wont go into this part, since its a lecture on its own. I just use it as a visualization/thought experiment.

So, using this concept, do we have any evidence for a state of existence that does not seem to apply to the standard of space-time? If something is able to exist outside of the fabric and mesh of space-time, then how would it interact within space-time? Would it pervade every corner of it, or would it be omitted entirely? Ill leave these questions open and just go into one possible iteration.

There are some things that seem to persist within space-time, such as magnetism and gravity, that seem to just work.. "differently." We can explain how they act within the medium/fabric, but there are still some nuances that leave some things unexplained.

Lets say that these forces we perceive are actually forces that exist outside of the constraints of the medium of space-time. If that is the case, I could see a certain course taking place at least based off of the understanding that we currently have.

What could have happened is that magnetism struck a pocket of space-time that exists in a larger universe. Much like light hitting a water molecule in the air. Within the medium of the water molecule, you have a different set of behaviors than you do outside of it in the air. Using this model, our "bubble" of space-time could be viewed in the same way. That time, movement, and relativity exist in a specific way inside, but perhaps not in the outside medium.

As the bubbles expansion forced the magnetism to move/oscillate, it created friction due to hitting a pocket with a maximum celerity (the speed of light). As movement was introduced in this way, time would also have to exist inherently as we need space-time to have movement, as well as at least two objects (perhaps envisioned as a transfer from 2d to 3d, or a particle to a wave). As this bubble expanded, the initial force of magnetism, which turned into what we know as energy/light/electricity, continued to fractal out in a very certain way creating the building blocks and foundation of what we know. These patterns, we know as physics.

As we all know, however, when we have time we have beginnings and ends. If such a medium exists within another medium that does not have this attribute, it is likely to form a certain shape. Can you imagine this shape?

Being a medium, there is also likely a minimum density of the fabric of space-time. I think we actually look at this when we explore things such as Planck Length, etc. In this thought experiment, that length would be the size of the "mesh."

So, just as the expansion of the medium of space-time forced the flow/movement of magnetism through it, it will also slowly "drain out." I.E. the beginning and the end. The rate of this flow will be determined by a few things, but can be understood through things like flow analysis.

As it drains out, the attributes of the mesh will establish a flow pattern much like water draining out of a bathtub. When we change this (the drain), different patterns will start to exhibit. Such as a black hole, where some of the medium of space-time has gone wonky and we see an accelerated pace of entropy (like a bathtub that doesnt have a floor). In this way, "gravity" would be a lot like things that get sucked down a drain other than the water, or picked up in a tornado, etc. They then get caught up in the mesh, and slowly start to back up in different areas forming clumps of matter.

Well, I think there is a lot to say on the topic, and its a lot of fun to think about different possibilities. The above is just a single possibility which may or may not reflect reality.
Even in just communicating one idea though, it approaches the limit of the medium of the "ATS Forum Post," or character limit.

edit on 18-6-2013 by Serdgiam because: lotta stuff!



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


Not necessarily. An infinite 3D space has no boundaries. Or a 3D space that curves back on itself so that if you go into one direction you return where you started, like a being on the surface of a fourdimensional sphere. This 3D shape has finite volume, yet still no boundaries.


You are including time into the picture. I am saying halt time at any point in time, and all that exists in a space of 3 dimensions, will take on a 3 dimensional shape. In our case it would be plotting the totality of galaxies in relation to one another. Of course it has boundaries, its boundaries are the finitude of its volume. If it did not have boundaries the space would not curve in on itself so you can go in one direction and return, if it did not have boundaries you could go straight forever and not curve in. Im not saying space and material cant go straight forever, but if at this point in time there is space and area surrounding all energy and matter that the energy/matter can head into, then the boundary of all closest material compared to the area the material is heading towards is the boundary of the 3-d shape the material universe takes on at that point in time.


Question: our universe seems infinite, can a zero dimensional point expand into infinite 3D space? Wouldnt it take infinite time to do so?


Seems infinite in what aspect? Infinite in size? To me thats impossible to have something infinitely large and borders on problems with semantics. If I imagine the term infinite in size to mean the bigger then the biggest biggest biggest biggest biggest ever big x 999999 bigs. Then true infinite would be infinitely bigger then that. and infinitely bigger then that. and infinitely bigger then that etc. ad infinitum.

Infinite in duration? Meaning something has always existed and something will always exist. My logic forbids me from disagreeing as astonishing as that conclusion is.

What then do you make of those who say the universe was created or began in the big bang? If energy has ALWAYS existed, what do you make of it being born at a moment relatively not too long ago? Does that mean that this style of energy orientation (sub atomic particles, radiation, atoms, ) did not exist before the big bang. and that some event occurred which created a bunch of original and novel stuff? Or do you propose the energy of reality (the eternal somethingness which is included in all the energy of the universe) has always taken on the form of subatomic particles? Are there an infinite number of 'styles' in which energy can take on?


Question: our universe seems infinite, can a zero dimensional point expand into infinite 3D space? Wouldnt it take infinite time to do so?


Hm. I dont know what a zero dimensional point means. Whenever I use that term in response to someone I am using it satirically in hopes of someone realizing how absurd the notion of "everything" that exists being contained in a non existent area of 0 dimensions. I dont know how or why infinite 3-d space would exist, how did it get there, why is it there, how can it truly be infinite? With your example of the inside of a sphere being infinite, you are not speaking in terms of an infinite sized object right? Because cant there be a bigger sphere, a more infinitely sized sphere? You are only talking about time, the fact that there is no maximum time limit regarding the duration one could possibly move through space and time along a circular path. where as a 2-d rectangle would not be infinite because there is a maximum amount of space and time to get from one end to the other. But hm, even there couldnt one flip over the edge and walk upside down on the other side of the 2-d rectangle and repeat infinitely? And if it was a 3-d rectangle even though edge to edge would be finite, one could walk the top edge, down the side edge, across the bottom, and infinitely repeat this cycle.

Also if there was infinite 3-d space, and there is not infinite energy, the finite energy could never fill the space.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You didnt address my point about galaxies in the center of the universe not moving. Please dont tell me everywhere is the center, because then you missed my point about how the universe is a 3-d shape, and 3-d shapes have if not accurately available, centers, at least rough centers. Why did galaxies towards the boundaries of the 3-d shaped universe move billions of light years in relation to the center, and the galaxies at the center not move at all?

Up
Left (Foward -Backward)Right
Down

Is that not what happened to energy very shortly after the big bang? Or are you claiming that the universe we exist in right now is 0 dimensions and always has been? How did somethingness get from 0 dimensions, to 3 (4) dimensions without it moving in relative directions from a common point (singularity?), if the energy moved "outward?" in all directions from a common point, why did some of the energy at the common point, not move outward at all, but stay exactly where it began for billions of years?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Add "charm" and "strange" in there, and you closely approach current understanding. edit: At least on the basic "forms" of movement, I dont mean to imply it towards your entire post.
edit on 18-6-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


I am inclined to agree that an explosion, even one generated in a vacuum, could not possibly gain any more acceleration then what it started with. I've been doing a lot of research on black holes recently because I find them interesting. The point at which a black hole breaks down is a singularity, this is something that people whom do astro physics have been unable to get around for some some time. A singularity being a point infinity small and infinity dense with infinite possibility. That being said, maybe our universe is the other end of a singularity.

Perhaps we are in or are in general a singularity, and when I say we I mean everything in the universe. If a singularity can be infinitly small and infinitely dense and electrons created at the same "time" can be obvserved to effect each other at the same time despite distance involved then I am of the thought that the electron is either in the same location which just seems like a great distance to us or they are somehow connected over that distance. I'm inclined to believe a universe can exist in a singularity and because of that everything in that universe is in a sort of 3d piece of paper and what may seem "flat" to an outside observer actually has a thickness that we as observers in this universe see as "space" or at least that's how we interpret it but what if their really isn't a thickness? If you don't understand what I mean may I please suggest you check out a book called: Flatland.

In any case our universe may be expanding because it's more or less the other end of a black hole in another much larger universe which is absorbing materials and feeding them into ours. Hell, even the "big bang" is thought to have begun as a singularity so I don't see why it is outside the realm possibility. Think about it...



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




Define 'nothing'.


That's the whole point. I gave three possible definitions of 'nothing' in a previous post. Pick one. Each one is guaranteed to give rise to the universe as we know it.

Now you can go all Zen-like and start saying that no matter how you define it, it isn't that. That is a useful meditation process, but it isn't helpful in a science discussion. And it isn't actually useful in a 'western' religious discussion either, because there is no equivalent mantra in western religion.

The fact is that however you define it, 'nothing' is unstable.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You didnt address my point about galaxies in the center of the universe not moving. Please dont tell me everywhere is the center, because then you missed my point about how the universe is a 3-d shape, and 3-d shapes have if not accurately available, centers, at least rough centers. Why did galaxies towards the boundaries of the 3-d shaped universe move billions of light years in relation to the center, and the galaxies ?...


But perhaps there is NO center and there is NO edge. Therefore, there are no galaxies "in the center" that have not moved far at all, and there are no galaxies "on the edges" that have moved billions of LYs.

Again, consider the balloon (this time, consider a balloon with dots drawn on it). As the balloon expands, the dots all get farther away from each other, but there is no dots "at the center not move at all" -- because there is no center to the surface of the balloon, AND there were no dots "towards the boundaries" that moved a greater distance, because there is no boundary to the surface of the balloon.

If you have an spherical surface, please tell me where the center is of that surface [remember, we are only talking the surface], and tell me where the edges are. You can't, because there are no edges and no center.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
there was previous universe until it ended and then ours began



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthontheloose
there was previous universe until it ended and then ours began


Science says "maybe" and science says "maybe not".

That fact is, nobody knows. If you know or have some reason to think that our universe was born after the death of another universe, then please elaborate.

Personally, I think it is possible that there are multiple universes all over, and universes come and go in a greater "multiverse". We can't see, feel, touch, or have any way at all of experiencing those other universe because the laws of physics are different in those universes. They are so different that they may as well not even exist as far as we are concerned.
edit on 6/18/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

because it is the most logical conclusion



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthontheloose
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

because it is the most logical conclusion


I dunno...

It seems just as logical to think that there are multiple universes in existence at any given time (such as now), and that our universe is simply one of those. That's not the same as your assertion that one universe dies before the next is created.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I don't think you really need to worry about what was before the big bang. As a theory the big bang is dead, most physacists and cosmologist do not really belive the big bang theory these days.

There simply is nothing else to replace it with so it remains.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join