Before the Big Bang
- Thread starter Irving
- Start date
G
Guest
What does time have to do with the Big Bang?
G
Guest
Very good Pamela.
Janus would you not agree that it is logical
to search for the nature of time at what you belive to be the begining of time. Just exactly what part of the Big Bang created time?
Janus would you not agree that it is logical
to search for the nature of time at what you belive to be the begining of time. Just exactly what part of the Big Bang created time?
Definetly it's logical to search for the nature of time at its origin. As for which part of the Big Bang created time, that's a tough question. Physics hasn't yet reached energies great enough to even glimpse the answer. Definetly befor the creation of the quark-gluon plasme, though.
First, sorry for the late, ok, now.
Please think in this:
here in the present the time is zero(0), in the future the time is positive and in the past the time is negative, o.k., now to the future the domain of time is all the real positive numbers(infinite), to the past the domain of time is all the real negative numbers(infinite to), so why we can't go before the big bang, it's something like the end of infinite, I think this is imposible, so, in my opinion we could travel before the big bang and after the big crunch, this affirmation its valid for a lineal universe and a circular universe, think it.
Please think in this:
here in the present the time is zero(0), in the future the time is positive and in the past the time is negative, o.k., now to the future the domain of time is all the real positive numbers(infinite), to the past the domain of time is all the real negative numbers(infinite to), so why we can't go before the big bang, it's something like the end of infinite, I think this is imposible, so, in my opinion we could travel before the big bang and after the big crunch, this affirmation its valid for a lineal universe and a circular universe, think it.
First, sorry for the late, ok, now.
Please think in this:
here in the present the time is zero(0), in the future the time is positive and in the past the time is negative, o.k., now to the future the domain of time is all the real positive numbers(infinite), to the past the domain of time is all the real negative numbers(infinite to), so why we can't go before the big bang, it's something like the end of infinite, I think this is imposible, so, in my opinion we could travel before the big bang and after the big crunch, this affirmation its valid for a lineal universe and a circular universe, think it.
Please think in this:
here in the present the time is zero(0), in the future the time is positive and in the past the time is negative, o.k., now to the future the domain of time is all the real positive numbers(infinite), to the past the domain of time is all the real negative numbers(infinite to), so why we can't go before the big bang, it's something like the end of infinite, I think this is imposible, so, in my opinion we could travel before the big bang and after the big crunch, this affirmation its valid for a lineal universe and a circular universe, think it.
Is time like the real numbers? Who knows? But if you say that time existed before the Big Bang, then you should really use a different label, because 'Big Bang' is the name given to the origin of spacetime - both coming into existence together.
Here's another angle - the Big Bang was a singularity, therefore nothing could exist at t=0 because it would see a naked singularity (which has all sorts of bad effects). 'Before' that, either nothing existed, or it was just the singularity. Naked.
Here's another angle - the Big Bang was a singularity, therefore nothing could exist at t=0 because it would see a naked singularity (which has all sorts of bad effects). 'Before' that, either nothing existed, or it was just the singularity. Naked.
You might try reading this book...
Beyond the Big Bang:
Ancient Myth and the Science of Continuous Creation
by Paul A. LaViolette
Park Street Press, Rochester, VT, 1995
ISBN: 0-89281-457-8
http://www.etheric.com/index.shtml
It proposes the potential of advancement of ancient technology to be associated with etheric origins, much like we may be on the same path of discovery today.
Beyond the Big Bang:
Ancient Myth and the Science of Continuous Creation
by Paul A. LaViolette
Park Street Press, Rochester, VT, 1995
ISBN: 0-89281-457-8
http://www.etheric.com/index.shtml
It proposes the potential of advancement of ancient technology to be associated with etheric origins, much like we may be on the same path of discovery today.
cmon, your answers are like stephen h. or something, first put allyour knowledge in the side and then think in my idea.
If the bigbang is time=0 then the present what time is ti? and dont answer 15000000000-20000000000 years, we are creating a new science, a new phisyc, and we need our ideas, dont you think, of curse we need basics in einstein, hawkings, newton, cuantum, relativity, but we need to test this ideas, days ago i read in teh web:
the speed of light supered 300 times! and you said how? its a natural barrier, but its simple the answer, whit a new and best phisycs, a phisycs to travel in time.
------------------
Remember, put your minds to work.
If the bigbang is time=0 then the present what time is ti? and dont answer 15000000000-20000000000 years, we are creating a new science, a new phisyc, and we need our ideas, dont you think, of curse we need basics in einstein, hawkings, newton, cuantum, relativity, but we need to test this ideas, days ago i read in teh web:
the speed of light supered 300 times! and you said how? its a natural barrier, but its simple the answer, whit a new and best phisycs, a phisycs to travel in time.
------------------
Remember, put your minds to work.
Thanks for the reference, Time02112. I'll be sure to look for the book.
"If the bigbang is time=0 then the present what time is ti?"
Well, that depends where you are. If you've been moving, it's changed from that of Earth. The present is a different elapsed time from t=0 for all observers. There is no absolute time. But I don't know, what logical answer could I give that you wouldn't just reply to with 'think more'? You're obviously expecting something, care to help us out?
The steady-state theory of cosmology is an alternate option to Big Bang theory. But, just as the Big Bang has the one big mystery of 'What was the Big Bang at t=0?', Steady State theory has the problem 'How do we get matter to appear for long (infinite) periods of time from empty space?'; a quite formidable obstacle.
"If the bigbang is time=0 then the present what time is ti?"
Well, that depends where you are. If you've been moving, it's changed from that of Earth. The present is a different elapsed time from t=0 for all observers. There is no absolute time. But I don't know, what logical answer could I give that you wouldn't just reply to with 'think more'? You're obviously expecting something, care to help us out?
The steady-state theory of cosmology is an alternate option to Big Bang theory. But, just as the Big Bang has the one big mystery of 'What was the Big Bang at t=0?', Steady State theory has the problem 'How do we get matter to appear for long (infinite) periods of time from empty space?'; a quite formidable obstacle.
Time02112, I was just looking at earlier posts in this thread. In one I missed earlier, you said that the Big Bang was the creation of just the Solar System. But, AFAIK, if something with the force of the Big Bang had occured in the confines of the solar system, it would have just been blown apart. The idea seems not to be self-coherent. Can you explain further?
Actualy, I retract my earlier comment pertaining to the Big Bang, as being just the mere creation of one such singularity, let me elaborate....Although the 10 dimensional superstring theory has been called the most fascinating discovery in theoretical physics in the past decades, its critics have focused on its weakest point, that it is almost impossible to test.
Einstein's theory of gravity, which gives us the Big Bang theory and black holes, was subjected to the most stringent test yet and passed with flying colors. In the latest (Oct.) issue of Physics Today, astronomers from Harvard, MIT, and the Haystack Observatory proudly announced that they had confirmed Einstein's theory to within an astonishing .04% accuracy by measuring the bending of radio waves from the quasar 3C279 near the edge of the visible universe.
But there is some irony in this announcement. Each success only highlights a yawning gap. Even as scientists hail ever more accurate tests of Einstein's theory of warped space, Einstein himself knew that his theory broke down at the instant of the Big Bang. The theory had feet of clay.
Relativity was worthless, he realized, when it came to answering the most embarrassing cosmic question in all of science: What happened before the Big Bang? Ask any cosmologist this question, and they will throw up their hands, roll their eyes, and lament, "This may be forever beyond the reach of science. We just don't know."
Until now, that is.
A remarkable consensus has been developing recently around what is called "quantum cosmology," where scientists believe that a merger of the quantum theory and Einstein's relativity may resolve these sticky theological questions. Theoretical physicists are rushing in where the angels fear to tread!
In particular, an appealing but starting new picture is emerging in quantum cosmology which may be able to synthesize some of the great mythologies of creation.
There are two dominant religious mythologies. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the universe had a definite beginning. This is the Genesis hypothesis, where the universe was hatched from a Cosmic Egg. However, according to the Hindu-Buddhist belief in Nirvana, the universe is timeless; it never had a beginning, nor will it have an end.
Quantum cosmology proposes a beautiful synthesis of these seemingly hostile viewpoints. In the beginning was Nothing. No space, no matter or energy. But according to the quantum principle, even Nothing was unstable. Nothing began to decay; i.e. it began to "boil," with billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly. Each bubble became an expanding universe.
If this is true, then our universe is actually part of a much larger "multiverse" of parallel universes, which is truly timeless, like Nirvana.
As Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has said, "An important implication is that there wasn't a beginning; that there were increasingly large Big Bangs, so that the <multiverse> goes on forever - one doesn't have to grapple with the question of it before the Bang. The <multiverse> has just been here all along. I find that a very satisfying picture."
Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. (This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe.)
As Alan Guth, originator of the inflationary theory, once said, "It's often said there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe itself may be a free lunch."
Andre Linde of Stanford has said, "If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good-bye to the idea that our universe was a single fireball created in the Big Bang."
Although this picture is appealing, it also raises more questions. Can life exist on these parallel universes? Stephen Hawking is doubtful; he believes that our universe may co-exist with other universes, but our universe is special. The probability of forming these other bubbles is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, Weinberg believes most of these parallel universes are probably dead. To have stable DNA molecules, the proton must be stable for at least 3 billion years. In these dead universes, the protons might have decayed into a sea of electrons and neutrinos.
Our universe may be one of the few compatible with life. This would, in fact, answer the age-old question of why the physical constants of the universe fall in a narrow band compatible with the formation of life. If the charge of the electron, the gravitational constant, etc. were changed slightly, then life would have been impossible. This is called the Anthropic Principle. As Freeman Dyson of Princeton said, "It's as if the universe knew we were coming." The strong version of this states that this proves the existence of God or an all-powerful deity.
But according to quantum cosmology, perhaps there are millions of dead universes. It was an accident, therefore, that our universe had conditions compatible with the formation of stable DNA molecules.
This leaves open the possibility, however, that there are parallel universes out there which are almost identical to ours, except for some fateful incident. Perhaps King George III did not lose the Colonies in one such universe.
http://64.33.56.95
Einstein's theory of gravity, which gives us the Big Bang theory and black holes, was subjected to the most stringent test yet and passed with flying colors. In the latest (Oct.) issue of Physics Today, astronomers from Harvard, MIT, and the Haystack Observatory proudly announced that they had confirmed Einstein's theory to within an astonishing .04% accuracy by measuring the bending of radio waves from the quasar 3C279 near the edge of the visible universe.
But there is some irony in this announcement. Each success only highlights a yawning gap. Even as scientists hail ever more accurate tests of Einstein's theory of warped space, Einstein himself knew that his theory broke down at the instant of the Big Bang. The theory had feet of clay.
Relativity was worthless, he realized, when it came to answering the most embarrassing cosmic question in all of science: What happened before the Big Bang? Ask any cosmologist this question, and they will throw up their hands, roll their eyes, and lament, "This may be forever beyond the reach of science. We just don't know."
Until now, that is.
A remarkable consensus has been developing recently around what is called "quantum cosmology," where scientists believe that a merger of the quantum theory and Einstein's relativity may resolve these sticky theological questions. Theoretical physicists are rushing in where the angels fear to tread!
In particular, an appealing but starting new picture is emerging in quantum cosmology which may be able to synthesize some of the great mythologies of creation.
There are two dominant religious mythologies. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the universe had a definite beginning. This is the Genesis hypothesis, where the universe was hatched from a Cosmic Egg. However, according to the Hindu-Buddhist belief in Nirvana, the universe is timeless; it never had a beginning, nor will it have an end.
Quantum cosmology proposes a beautiful synthesis of these seemingly hostile viewpoints. In the beginning was Nothing. No space, no matter or energy. But according to the quantum principle, even Nothing was unstable. Nothing began to decay; i.e. it began to "boil," with billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly. Each bubble became an expanding universe.
If this is true, then our universe is actually part of a much larger "multiverse" of parallel universes, which is truly timeless, like Nirvana.
As Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has said, "An important implication is that there wasn't a beginning; that there were increasingly large Big Bangs, so that the <multiverse> goes on forever - one doesn't have to grapple with the question of it before the Bang. The <multiverse> has just been here all along. I find that a very satisfying picture."
Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. (This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe.)
As Alan Guth, originator of the inflationary theory, once said, "It's often said there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe itself may be a free lunch."
Andre Linde of Stanford has said, "If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good-bye to the idea that our universe was a single fireball created in the Big Bang."
Although this picture is appealing, it also raises more questions. Can life exist on these parallel universes? Stephen Hawking is doubtful; he believes that our universe may co-exist with other universes, but our universe is special. The probability of forming these other bubbles is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, Weinberg believes most of these parallel universes are probably dead. To have stable DNA molecules, the proton must be stable for at least 3 billion years. In these dead universes, the protons might have decayed into a sea of electrons and neutrinos.
Our universe may be one of the few compatible with life. This would, in fact, answer the age-old question of why the physical constants of the universe fall in a narrow band compatible with the formation of life. If the charge of the electron, the gravitational constant, etc. were changed slightly, then life would have been impossible. This is called the Anthropic Principle. As Freeman Dyson of Princeton said, "It's as if the universe knew we were coming." The strong version of this states that this proves the existence of God or an all-powerful deity.
But according to quantum cosmology, perhaps there are millions of dead universes. It was an accident, therefore, that our universe had conditions compatible with the formation of stable DNA molecules.
This leaves open the possibility, however, that there are parallel universes out there which are almost identical to ours, except for some fateful incident. Perhaps King George III did not lose the Colonies in one such universe.
http://64.33.56.95
Mokrie-this is the end of the above copy and paste conversation. Isnt this very interesting?
However, I can calculate the probability that one day you might be walking down the street, only to fall into hole in space and enter a parallel universe. You would have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for such a cosmic event to happen. So I guess the United States is safe for the present!
As J.B.S. Haldane once said, "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose."
Dr. Michio Kaku is Prof. of theoretical physics at the City Univ. of New York and author of Hyperspace: a Scientific Odyssey through the 10th Dimension (Oxford Univ. Press).
Sometimes I believe that we are like the carp living contently on the bottom of a pond; we live our lives blissfully ignorant of other worlds that might co-exist with us, laughing at any suggestion of parallel universes.
<This message has been edited by pamela (edited 12 July 2000).>
However, I can calculate the probability that one day you might be walking down the street, only to fall into hole in space and enter a parallel universe. You would have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for such a cosmic event to happen. So I guess the United States is safe for the present!
As J.B.S. Haldane once said, "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose."
Dr. Michio Kaku is Prof. of theoretical physics at the City Univ. of New York and author of Hyperspace: a Scientific Odyssey through the 10th Dimension (Oxford Univ. Press).
Sometimes I believe that we are like the carp living contently on the bottom of a pond; we live our lives blissfully ignorant of other worlds that might co-exist with us, laughing at any suggestion of parallel universes.
<This message has been edited by pamela (edited 12 July 2000).>
I always liked the idea that literally anything is possible. Seems kind of humbling to think, that in an infinitesimally unlikely quantum fluctuation, Earth might cease to ever have existed. If that makes any sense.
And really, in a timeless, infinite void, what do probabilities mean? Simply that one thing will happen less than another. Even if it's extreeeeeemely unlikely that a Universe like ours may have come into existance, it still happens infinite times - just a smaller infinity than other possibilities.
And really, in a timeless, infinite void, what do probabilities mean? Simply that one thing will happen less than another. Even if it's extreeeeeemely unlikely that a Universe like ours may have come into existance, it still happens infinite times - just a smaller infinity than other possibilities.