What happened BEFORE the big bang?

reply to post by operation mindcrime

Stop being so modest. Questions are only stupid when the answers are obvious.

Try this: Symmetry Breaking

That's Wikipedia. It's a bit encyclopaedic, ie technical, compendious and dull. If you want something funkier, meatier and a hell of a lot more inspiring, read P.W. Anderson's essay 'More is Different'. I tried to hunt up a web version for you but couldn't find it--however, my googling brought up a zillion PDFs. Download one and read it.

He was a chemical physicist, I believe. Won a Nobel Prize.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Threads do not 'belong' to people.

You are, of course, quite right. Nor does a conversation within a circle of people at a party 'belong' to anyone. However, if someone were to elbow their way into the conversation and start talking about something quite different, the conversants may be forgiven for feeling, and even expressing, a touch of resentment.

I joined this discussion because of the issue of consciousness.

The 'issue of consciousness' has nothing to do with the scientific theory of the origin of the physical cosmos popularly known as the Big Bang. You like weighty phrases; try this one on for size: nonoverlapping magisteria.

At the moment I have a notion that the Big Bang is constantly occurring. Imagine the whole 3D universe as the surface of a donut, only without a great void in the middle but rather a tiny point (in this example 3D is seen as 2D compared to the other dimensions that makes up the donut). The surface is moving so that what is at the centre travels outwards, only to finally travel inwards again.
This tiny point through which everything is sprung out into existence is also into what everything eventually churns back into, only to be spewed back out again.
The universe seems expanding since we are moving towards the wider parts of the donut, but also, the universe is infinite in the same fashion as a circle is. It wont matter what direction you travel, you'll always end up where you started (supposing that the singularity in the middle won't cast all of your makeup into different directions if ventured through :-D )

Something, maybe the the expansion of space, gives room for ever more sophisticated building blocks of things that exist. The very nature of the universe becoming ever more complex is the same motor that drives any progress, which embeds our yern to evolve and attain knowledge. We shall never know the exact nature of things, it will always stay ahead because it is the root of our progress toward it.
In addition, all parallel existences are actually superimposed on one another. All options are possible all the time and do happen all the time. Our minds are tuned in to one specific dimension of these existences and consequently only give us the narrative of only one of these.

Oh darn, i sound like a new age enlightened loonie in my attempts to be concise... :-D

What happened before the big bang: the universe got sucked into the singularity and spewed back out, naturally giving anything coming to existence the impression of an explosion.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The 'issue of consciousness' has nothing to do with the scientific theory of the origin of the physical cosmos popularly known as the Big Bang.

Says you.

A scientific theory is a thought.

A thought is a construct of consciousness.

Point out to me one thought that was not 'thought' by the consciousness of the 'thinker'...

Or which was not Revealed by the Creator.

"As high a the heavens are above the earth are My thoughts above your thoughts"; as was written by the prophet Isaiah.

This group is also for the discussion of Creationism: the belief that everything was Created by God.

My argument is that the dimension of consciousness that was Created by God is neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

This is relevant to the topics under discussion here; despite the fact that you might not like it.

Michael

Originally posted by slugfish
At the moment I have a notion that the Big Bang is constantly occurring.

This is my perspective as well, the entire concept of time itself being relative to only the consciousness of the 'thinker', as was 'first' understood by Freud.

Anyone who knows very much at all about the psychology of the 'unconscious', however, understands that it is time- independent; which is one of the reasons why archetypal psychology is frowned upon by 'thinker'-scientists as not being precisely 'scientific'.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


What is the origin of pie? What is the origin of sneakers? What is the origin of Marvel comics? What is the origin of modern printing?

All of those have something in common with consciousness in the manner you're describing it: they are irrelevant to this forum

Stop misrepresenting what this forum is about.


reply to post by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Threads do not 'belong' to people.

Technically they do. If I start a thread it is 'my' thread
.

There is not 'my' thread and 'your' thread and 'their' thread.

There is a subject up for discussion that anyone can join.

Yes, and you're not discussing it.

I joined this discussion because of the issue of consciousness.

Which is irrelevant to this thread. It has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

It is claimed that the "Big Bang" is the source of EVERYTHING.

Is it the source of consciousness as well?

This is really a quite simple question for anyone who is looking at this subject seriously.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Says you.

A scientific theory is a thought.

A thought is a construct of consciousness.

Point out to me one thought that was not 'thought' by the consciousness of the 'thinker'...

Or which was not Revealed by the Creator.

By your logic you could bring this stuff up in a discussion about cookies, where it would be equally as pointless.

You're talking about, at best, a metaphysical philosophy of mind. That sort of thing is unrelated to science as it has no scientific basis.

The specific question in this thread is about the Big Bang

"As high a the heavens are above the earth are My thoughts above your thoughts"; as was written by the prophet Isaiah.

This group is also for the discussion of Creationism: the belief that everything was Created by God.

My argument is that the dimension of consciousness that was Created by God is neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Well, then start a thread about it. We're talking about the Big Bang in here.

This is relevant to the topics under discussion here; despite the fact that you might not like it.

Just because you get it in your head that it might be mildly relevant to the discussion of the forum as a whole doesn't mean it applies to a specific thread.

How does this apply to the Big Bang Theory or scientific thought regarding cosmology in any way shape or form?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

You're talking about, at best, a metaphysical philosophy of mind.

No, I'm not.

I don't believe in any 'mind'. Just like I don't believe in either "phlogiston" or the "ether".

That sort of thing is unrelated to science as it has no scientific basis.

Science has no scientific basis.

It is founded on metaphysical assumptions which cannot be proven.

You might want to read Karl Popper.

But prolly not.

Michael

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


A theory is a theory until proven as fact.

The big bang theory is not proven as fact.

The big bang theory states that there is no before because time nor space existed before, only nothingness and energy, one packet of energy coalesced/collapsed to start a chain reaction expansion.

The void of which i speak is not the lack of background radiation, rather the large void contained within it, if you look at the BMR universe maps you will see a large void within it, this void is not at the center where the big bang would have it.

The Galaxies around us are mostly flying away from us as you would expect in rapid expansion, but there are also those coming towards us.

Inflation theory does not match the big bang as it states that universes expands then contracts on itself, then expands into a new universe.

Membrane theory does not match the big bang theory because it states that universes are created by the collision of two or more membranes, the expansion rate being the some of the impact speed of the membranes.

I think you will find that i have made no false claims sir.

And that the facts as i presented them are indeed the facts!

Until proven, the big bang theory very much remains a theory, a model.

The scientist treads the path of uncertainty,..... faith, be it in the form of belief or doubt,belongs to the priesthood.

The way i see it, there are at least two other options for me to reject your reality and substitute my own.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Nor does a conversation within a circle of people at a party 'belong' to anyone.

Who said that this is a "party" or a social event?

I consider it to be a discussion of the structure of reality.

If you want a "party", go someplace else.

Off the Internet.

That is what I do.

However, if someone were to elbow their way into the conversation and start talking about something quite different, the conversants may be forgiven for feeling, and even expressing, a touch of resentment.

Any resentment you may feel--oh, by the way, resentment is felt by the consciousness of the "self", but defined as "resentment" by the consciousness of the 'thinker'--is due to the fact that I will not fall down in worship of your 'God'--the 'thinker'. Nor will I consider the thoughts of your 'God' to be the Absolute 'Revealed' 'Truth' from your 'God'.

This is what is go galling to you: that I will not worship your witless 'thinker'-'God'.

But the Buddhists would consider both your thoughts and your resentments to be merely maya or illusion and of no relevance whatsoever to the structure of reality.

Which is what my perspective is on the whole "theory", "hypothesis", "fact"--whatever it is you want to call it makes no difference to me--of the "Big Bang" or 'evolution', for that matter.

All maya. All illusion.

As are your resentments that I do not believe what you believe.

Michael

reply to post by Cosmic4life

Irrespective of whether or not there is any "Big Bang", my perspective is that the 3-dimensional 'curved' space reality emerges out of the 2-dimensional 'flat' space reality. But the mechanism for that emergence occurs at the level of consciousness.

Additional discussion of the mathematical differentiation between the 2D space and the 3D space and its relationship to Einstein's GR can be found on the Sarfatti Physics Seminars Yahoo discussion group, where I have been allowed to publish my research periodically under the I.D. of "deadseascrolls1".

Michael

Originally posted by Astyanax
The 'issue of consciousness' has nothing to do with the scientific theory of the origin of the physical cosmos popularly known as the Big Bang. You like weighty phrases; try this one on for size: nonoverlapping magisteria.

edit on 12/10/10 by Astyanax because: annoyance.

Ironically some people would say that the "issue of consciousness" has everything to do with the origin of the physical cosmos that we are experiencing.

When you attempt to discuss something like "The Big Bang" you are really only discussing an abstract concept in relation to consciousness.

While you could say this about anything it is particularly related to "The Big Bang" because of how disconnected the issue is from our own conscious experience.

It is our perception of variables in relation to complex mathematical equations (based on much speculation) that creates something like "The Big Bang".


The Primacy of Consciousness
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Cosmic4life

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

A theory is a theory until proven as fact.

The big bang theory is not proven as fact.

*Le sigh*

Germ theory
Circuit theory
Cell theory
Theory of gravitation
Theory of evolution

Just off the top of my head. Those are four 'theories' that are generally accepted scientific fact. If circuit 'theory' wasn't fact we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If germ theory wasn't fact this cold I have would probably have gotten a lot worse.

I already explained it to you. In science a theory is something that can be applied and makes predictions and has supporting evidence.

Something that doesn't have any proof is a hypothesis.

The big bang theory states that there is no before because time nor space existed before, only nothingness and energy, one packet of energy coalesced/collapsed to start a chain reaction expansion.

Well, the theory doesn't come in a singular form. Physicists are still arguing over it.

The void of which i speak is not the lack of background radiation, rather the large void contained within it, if you look at the BMR universe maps you will see a large void within it, this void is not at the center where the big bang would have it.

There isn't actually anything in Big Bang cosmology that states the center of the universe is void. It might be less full, but not necessarily void.

If you've ever blown something up in an uncontrolled fashion (I was once very young and stupid) you can see that sometimes the bits of whatever it is (pumpkins) can actually wind up at the point where the explosion started.

The Galaxies around us are mostly flying away from us as you would expect in rapid expansion, but there are also those coming towards us.

There can actually be all sorts of explanations for that. Like possible interactions between galaxies altering their courses.

Inflation theory does not match the big bang as it states that universes expands then contracts on itself, then expands into a new universe.

Again, still matches big bang theory. The big bang doesn't say anything about the end of the universe.

A more common way to refer to this is actually the 'big bang/big crunch' cycle.

Membrane theory does not match the big bang theory because it states that universes are created by the collision of two or more membranes, the expansion rate being the some of the impact speed of the membranes.

Yes, but this collision would manifest itself in the form of a singularity 'banging' a universe into being. As of now we don't have a determinate of what the speed of the big bang is.

I think you will find that i have made no false claims sir.

You misdefined the term 'theory'

And that the facts as i presented them are indeed the facts!

You haven't provided any facts, merely statements of your own. You'd have to provide backing for something to be a 'fact'

Until proven, the big bang theory very much remains a theory, a model.

Well, I'm working on a computer that operates on a theory, a model. I'm about to take an antibiotic that also comes from a theory.

The scientist treads the path of uncertainty,..... faith, be it in the form of belief or doubt,belongs to the priesthood.

Yes, but at this point the uncertainty comes from the particulars, not the concept.

The way i see it, there are at least two other options for me to reject your reality and substitute my own.

The problem is that neither of them contradicts the big bang, it merely modifies its cause and the specifics of the expansion.

The big bang is a very general concept, not a very well defined one.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Who said that this is a "party" or a social event?

I consider it to be a discussion of the structure of reality.

Nope, it's a discussion on questions about Big Bang Cosmology.

Any resentment you may feel--oh, by the way, resentment is felt by the consciousness of the "self", but defined as "resentment" by the consciousness of the 'thinker'--is due to the fact that I will not fall down in worship of your 'God'--the 'thinker'. Nor will I consider the thoughts of your 'God' to be the Absolute 'Revealed' 'Truth' from your 'God'.

I feel a sort of resentment that you're lording a two hour understanding of philosophy of mind over us. I'm taking philosophy as my minor and I already know you're way out of your depth.

This isn't the thoughts of anyone being seen as the thoughts of god, this is about science. You're spewing out pseudo-philosophical speculation and you're expecting it to be taken as seriously as science.

This is what is go galling to you: that I will not worship your witless 'thinker'-'God'.

What's galling is that you're not talking about anything related to Big Bang cosmology in a thread about....Big Bang cosmology.

But the Buddhists would consider both your thoughts and your resentments to be merely maya or illusion and of no relevance whatsoever to the structure of reality.

So? The Buddhists believe all sorts of things that I don't accept. Their religious beliefs have no weight in this discussion.

Which is what my perspective is on the whole "theory", "hypothesis", "fact"--whatever it is you want to call it makes no difference to me--of the "Big Bang" or 'evolution', for that matter.

All maya. All illusion.

Then why are you posting in here?

If you find the content of this thread to be an illusion, go find something real to do.

As are your resentments that I do not believe what you believe.

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me, I just hate it when I'm talking about films and someone jumps in and starts telling me about their surfing trip.

You're off topic. Find a different thread.

reply to post by Jezus

Originally posted by Jezus
Ironically some people would say that the "issue of consciousness" has everything to do with the origin of the physical cosmos that we are experiencing.

These people wouldn't be scientists.

When you attempt to discuss something like "The Big Bang" you are really only discussing an abstract concept in relation to consciousness.

Except for all of that concrete physical evidence that we have.

While you could say this about anything it is particularly related to "The Big Bang" because of how disconnected the issue is from our own conscious experience.

How is it disconnected?

It is our perception of variables in relation to complex mathematical equations (based on much speculation) that creates something like "The Big Bang".

It's actually our observation of phenomenon that we then place into complex mathematical equations that are based on logical rigor.

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by 547000

 

Is time not the only constant? Everything is measured in time.
Even "before" there must have been something VVV

everythingforever.com...
Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed.

Time is not constant but is relative to distance traveled, without movement you can not have time.
Without space to move in you can not have time. Without matter moving you can not have time.

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

in the "time" God created the space and matter

Pss.104

1. [2] Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Einstein said time and space were like a fabric, " the bible said it long before".

When ever a word in the bible ends in est or eth it means continually happening, which is quite interesting since we know today that the heavens are in movement in all directions.

reply to post by slugfish

At the moment I have a notion that the Big Bang is constantly occurring. Imagine the whole 3D universe as the surface of a donut, only without a great void in the middle but rather a tiny point (in this example 3D is seen as 2D compared to the other dimensions that makes up the donut).

Mind-stretching stuff; many thanks. It might help us understand you better if you were to label the dimensions of your doughnut. Which is time? Is your model essentially the one shown in cushycrux's post, generalized to multiverses in a 2D time manifold? Is that why you say the Big Bang is constantly occurring? And does the model imply the universe moving negatively through time in the contraction phase of its cycle?

*

Something, maybe the the expansion of space, gives room for ever more sophisticated building blocks of things that exist.

Presumably this 'something' would eventually reach its point of fullest development and then begin to diminish, reimposing simplicity/disorder? This sounds very like the concept of entropy, or...

...spontaneous symmetry making

The very nature of the universe becoming ever more complex is the same motor that drives any progress, which embeds our yern to evolve and attain knowledge.

I think this is where we slip over from physics to philosophy, though I'm still with you, sort of...

We shall never know the exact nature of things, it will always stay ahead because it is the root of our progress toward it.

I have reached the same conclusion from a less abstruse point of origin. Our understanding of the nature of things is limited by the way we have evolved, organically, to understand them. Reality is not directly apprehensible by the kind of recording and measuring instruments we are.

In addition, all parallel existences are actually superimposed on one another. All options are possible all the time and do happen all the time. Our minds are tuned in to one specific dimension of these existences and consequently only give us the narrative of only one of these.

Indeed. The sum over histories.

What happened before the big bang: the universe got sucked into the singularity and spewed back out, naturally giving anything coming to existence the impression of an explosion.

Maybe. But we can never be sure of that, because of the physical discontinuity that is a singularity.

Well, here is something out of context and perhaps funny (at least for me it is!)
What happened before the big bang?

GOD was building the most amazing and super exponentially long LHC for the big bang to happen!

There!

Mystery solved!

EDIT: To conduct spell check...I'm sure I left something spelled incorrectly again!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Jezus
Ironically some people would say that the "issue of consciousness" has everything to do with the origin of the physical cosmos that we are experiencing.

These people wouldn't be scientists.

Don't be ridiculous.

Many scientists understand the primacy of consciousness.

You really can't consider the origin of this reality without understanding the primacy of your experience.

The Primacy of Consciousness
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


As I recall, the current theory is that before the Big Bang, there was nothing in this univers. However, the big bang was essentially the result of two other universe bumping together.