The Big Bang AKA Where The **** Did It All Start?

Freebase Dali · 07-31-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

What if "where did it all start?" is the wrong question?

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.
Could the question be, "what caused everything to happen"?

Guybrush · 08-01-2011, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

On the other, it means event one, the start of all things.

It makes no sense, obviously, to talk about the event that came before event one. If there was an event before the one we currently believe to have been the first one, then that would be the first one. There is no before when you're talking about that-which-preceded-all.

I don't fully agree here. According to the The Big Bang theory, our universe started with a "big bang" (or rapid expansion rather), but predicting what happened before that when you have all the matter of the universe in one place is not really simple. We don't know how the laws of physics would behave in such a place and explaining how they did may be outside the scope of physics. Who can really say that something like a big crunch didn't happen first that put all the universe's matter in that one place?

Perhaps there are many good arguments physicists could raise, but as far as I know, a big crunch preceding a big bang is still a valid hypothesis.

The Monkey · 08-01-2011, 10:18 AM

Relevant:

‪Meet Karl Pilkington 2- The big bang‬&rlm; - YouTube[

skaltezon · 08-01-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

With the energy being constant, and the speed of light being constant, the following is how I see it going down:

e = m * (c^2) (where e=energy, m=mass, c=speed of light), therefor:
m = e / (c^2)
With the energy of the universe being virtually infinite, we get:
m = infinity / (c^2) = infinity
Therefor, the mass of the universe is infinite.
d = (m / v) (where d=density, m=mass, v=volume)
The volume of the multiverse is finite, it has an exact and unchanging volume.
With mass being infinite, we get:
m = (d * v) = infinity
Since (d * v) is infinite, and v is finite, then that makes d infinite.

In summation:
Mass is infinite and constant.
Volume is finite, but not constant.
Density is infinite, but not constant.
Energy is infinite and constant.

It's just a constant cycle that has always been, and always will be. This is a hard theory to wrap your head around, but no harder than religion or "God." I doubt that this will do much to prove or even get us any closer to getting the answer that we are looking for, as I'm probably just talking out of my ass, but that's my shot at it.

It can never end, thus, it never began. It just "is." Makes no sense, but just as much sense as everything else.

Very entertaining. But your 'virtually-infinite' energy isn't the same as 'infinite' energy. 'Virtually-infinite' suggests something finite and theoretically measurable. But we aren't capable of measuring anything that's infinite, even theoretically. Therefore we can't talk about an infinite quantity in any meaningful way. Also, you converted 'virtually-infinite' energy to 'infinite' mass, which is inconsistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i actually do have a working knowledge of the theory behind all this (or did have)

i think the quantum mechanical theory of things just appearing out of nowhere feasible for me (I can't exactly remember the quantum physical mechanics behind this)

Virtual particles being created in a strong gravitational field? It's how Hawking gets his black holes to evaporate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That isn't a fact, as you call it. Our relationship with the universe is from an extremely remote perspective, from the bottom of a gravity well on a speck of dust. At present there's no way of determining whether the universe is 'self-dictating' or has a 'motive'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

I think the mystical crap is a place holder for what we don't yet understand.

I agree, except that to call it crap suggests it isn't worth understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman

So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.

Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I find the question of 'where did it all begin?' terrifying. I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of 'nothingness', but surely, at some point, that's all there must have been, right?

Uh, thinking about it is like staring into oblivion.

Maybe the concepts of 'time' and 'cause-and-effect' are just artifacts of the human brain that used to help our understanding but now are hindering it. All the rules we've invented to describe what we see may be dependent on our biology.

.

.

RVCA · 08-02-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I don't fully agree here. According to the The Big Bang theory, our universe started with a "big bang" (or rapid expansion rather), but predicting what happened before that when you have all the matter of the universe in one place is not really simple. We don't know how the laws of physics would behave in such a place and explaining how they did may be outside the scope of physics. Who can really say that something like a big crunch didn't happen first that put all the universe's matter in that one place?

Perhaps there are many good arguments physicists could raise, but as far as I know, a big crunch preceding a big bang is still a valid hypothesis.

You're correct, but even if the universe is in an endless series of big-bang-big-crunches, they still had to start with something. There will still be an "event number one" which, by definition, could not have been preceded by anything at all.

lucifer_sam · 08-02-2011, 05:11 PM

I've formed hypotheses in regards to the origin of the universe, more specifically the origin of time, but I dunno if I'd be able to convey them properly...

My basic premise is there is no such thing as time, or at least time as a dimension which could be considered disparate from spatial dimensions. In layman's terms, the only way we've ever been able to prove the existence of time is to say that things happen. And indeed, we've only ever measured time by the passage of one event to the next, regardless of whether that event is the revolution of the Earth or the infinitesimal switching of atomic polarities of a Cesium atom.

Imagine all of the events of the universe, spread out before you like an enormous film strip: from the singularity event to whatever annihilation awaits us all at the end of days. You can see that despite the immense complexity of it all, time viewed in this manner is simply another spatial dimension demarcating the progress of the universe's unraveling.

One of the implications of this hypothesis is to nullify the existence of a supposed "great crunch," because time becomes inextricably tied to the expansion of the universe, and once that reaches its apex, well, time no longer exists. The behavior of the universe -- its purported expansion and inflation -- would be governed by higher-order mathematics of which I don't have the capacity to deduct.

I will say that regardless of whether any of these assumptions are correct, astrophysics remains one of the truly sketchy sciences; I strongly doubt even the most cogent astrophysicist has a clue as to what really happened in the beginning. But then again, science has never been about getting it right, only getting it less wrong.

right-track · 08-02-2011, 05:12 PM

Welcome back, Sam!

Guybrush · 08-02-2011, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

I've formed hypotheses in regards to the origin of the universe, more specifically the origin of time, but I dunno if I'd be able to convey them properly...

My basic premise is there is no such thing as time, or at least time as a dimension which could be considered disparate from spatial dimensions. In layman's terms, the only way we've ever been able to prove the existence of time is to say that things happen.

You might find this interesting .. According to Einstein, things that move very fast move slower through time. His theories are consistent with our observations and for example satellites which travel around the earth at orbit at high speed are affected by this so much that this effect has to be corrected for when syncing their clocks to clocks close to the earth's surface.

Also, the general predicted scenario for our universe does not include a big crunch. Observations have indicated that such a scenario will never take place and that was one of the important observations that kickstarted the whole anti-matter thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

You're correct, but even if the universe is in an endless series of big-bang-big-crunches, they still had to start with something. There will still be an "event number one" which, by definition, could not have been preceded by anything at all.

I don't necessarily believe that our universe is infinite, but how can you say it isn't?

lucifer_sam · 08-02-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

You might find this interesting .. According to Einstein, things that move very fast move slower through time. His theories are consistent with our observations and for example satellites which travel around the earth at orbit at high speed are affected by this so much that this effect has to be corrected for when syncing their clocks to clocks close to the earth's surface.

Also, the general predicted scenario for our universe does not include a big crunch. Observations have indicated that such a scenario will never take place and that was one of the important observations that kickstarted the whole anti-matter thing.

Yeah, time dilation is part of the whole relativity thing -- I had a university class on relativity and quantum mechanics a few years ago. And it isn't that fast moving objects move slower through time (there is no "zero" reference point in time), it's that from a stationary perspective, they appear to be.

Relativity (more specifically, velocity dilation) was responsible for the explanation of red shift phenomena, allowing astronomers to verify that the universe is indeed expanding (and therefore, NOT infinite).

lucifer_sam · 08-02-2011, 07:37 PM

Double posting because something egregious caught me eye...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I don't necessarily believe that our universe is infinite, but how can you say it isn't?

As a logical argument, this is perfectly acceptable. Effectively, it is infinite. There is no possible way for us to measure the known size of the universe, or even the rate of expansion, but assuming the universe is indeed expanding...

...it's mathematically fallible. Consider:

(Infinity) + 1 = (Infinity)
(Infinity) * 2 = (Infinity)
or even
(Infinity) * (Infinity) = (Infinity)

If the universe is indeed expanding, it follows there MUST be some change in its size from state 1 to state 2. However, since

(Infinity) - (Infinity) = 0

it follows that an infinitely large universe would be a static one.

08-01-2011, 10:18 AM	#83 (permalink)
The Monkey Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 803	Relevant: ‪Meet Karl Pilkington 2- The big bang‬&rlm; - YouTube[ __________________ Now another stranger seems to want you to ignore his dreams as though they were the burden of some other My Last.fm

08-02-2011, 05:11 PM	#86 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	I've formed hypotheses in regards to the origin of the universe, more specifically the origin of time, but I dunno if I'd be able to convey them properly... My basic premise is there is no such thing as time, or at least time as a dimension which could be considered disparate from spatial dimensions. In layman's terms, the only way we've ever been able to prove the existence of time is to say that things happen. And indeed, we've only ever measured time by the passage of one event to the next, regardless of whether that event is the revolution of the Earth or the infinitesimal switching of atomic polarities of a Cesium atom. Imagine all of the events of the universe, spread out before you like an enormous film strip: from the singularity event to whatever annihilation awaits us all at the end of days. You can see that despite the immense complexity of it all, time viewed in this manner is simply another spatial dimension demarcating the progress of the universe's unraveling. One of the implications of this hypothesis is to nullify the existence of a supposed "great crunch," because time becomes inextricably tied to the expansion of the universe, and once that reaches its apex, well, time no longer exists. The behavior of the universe -- its purported expansion and inflation -- would be governed by higher-order mathematics of which I don't have the capacity to deduct. I will say that regardless of whether any of these assumptions are correct, astrophysics remains one of the truly sketchy sciences; I strongly doubt even the most cogent astrophysicist has a clue as to what really happened in the beginning. But then again, science has never been about getting it right, only getting it less wrong. __________________ first.am

08-02-2011, 05:12 PM	#87 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,769	Welcome back, Sam!