The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What existed before the Big Bang?  (Read 60715 times)

Offline Eddie

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #50 on: 19/09/2008 21:35:04 »
Hi Lee,
I like the idea of 'other dimension, theories' hope you've secured a patent.

Do you know of the work of Bohmer ('o' with an umlaut) and his submission of the Nariai universe?
He uses 'loop quantom gravity' to try to remove the space-time singularity in a black hole.Inside the black hole matter would travel forever and this would be experienced as infinite even though inside a black hole of finite size. In short a universe within a black hole.

Implications of this indicate either the unstable Nariai will collapse or beome a deSitter universe which would also have blackholes. These in turn would be universes in their own right and so on.

Please accept my apologies if you know all this, bit if not, you can find details on
NewScientist.com.newsservice (October 2007)
it's where I got it from.

The idea is not quite the same as yours but you may find it interesting and I'd be interested in what you think....one problem is loop quantom gravity cannot introduce any kind of experiment which would predict phenomena the standard model also predicts , unlike yours.

Regards

Eddie




 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #51 on: 20/09/2008 06:37:03 »

(In fact the Higgs field was cited as the means to the 'from nothing we come and to nothing we will go' theories of the big bang in the late 80's.)

What are we to make of the theoretical non zero vacuum state expectation?

Problem to me is, at this stage, particle physics seems to be leading either to the creation ex-nihilo idea or the possibility infinite regression. Are we therefore looking to cyclic universes or other dimensions?

To answer Joshua Brown's post is hard because the illogical submission of something from nothing doesn't seem to have anything concrete to challenge it yet other than events which at the moment are regarded as acausal.

Regards,
Eddie
===========================================

What is infinity?
Abstraction or Reality?
Speculation or Fact ?
Does Infinity have any physical parameters?
==========
 To be or not to be? ,
that is the question.
/  Shakespeare /

 

Offline Eddie

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #52 on: 20/09/2008 20:46:05 »
Hi Socratus,

In the context of Joshua's question we are talking here of theoretical infinity, a mathematical concept of never ending series. Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities all of the time in it's quest to formulate the unified force which it believes existed at the instant of the big bang. Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities' by placing them on either sides of their equations thus cancelling them out.

If the big bang was not created from nothing then it must have been created from something. Then you have to ask what came before that and so on. If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing you are forced into infinite causality.

This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts.

"To be or not to be? That is the question.
To be and not to be, that is the answer."
/Marjorie Orr/ 
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #53 on: 21/09/2008 01:42:17 »
Hi Eddie,

No, I hadn't heard of Bohmer's work - sounds interesting and thanks for pointing it out - I'll have to look it up and have a read sometime.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #54 on: 21/09/2008 11:01:48 »
Hi Socratus,

In the context of Joshua's question we are talking here of theoretical infinity, a mathematical concept of never ending series. Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities all of the time in it's quest to formulate the unified force which it believes existed at the instant of the big bang. Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities' by placing them on either sides of their equations thus cancelling them out.

If the big bang was not created from nothing then it must have been created from something. Then you have to ask what came before that and so on. If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing you are forced into infinite causality.

This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts.

"To be or not to be? That is the question.
To be and not to be, that is the answer."
/Marjorie Orr/ 
========================
1.
Eddie;
we are talking here of theoretical infinity,
we are talking here of a mathematical concept …..of infinity,

S.
I say here about Real Infinity of Universe.

2.
Eddie;
Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities …………
…………..
Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities'
by placing them on either sides of their equations
thus cancelling them out.

S.
Why ? ? ?
Because the concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists.  They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed
 to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
 has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
 and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
 « If we want that the theory would be correct,
 the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
 Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
 all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.

3.
Eddie;
If the big bang was not created from nothing then
 it must have been created from something.
 
S.
“ big bang” is speculative “theory”.

4.
Eddie;
Then you have to ask what came before that and so on.
 If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing
 you are forced into infinite causality.

S.
You are right. ( if you don’t know that Infinity is)

5.
Eddie;
This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts.

S.
The conception “ Nothingness is Infinity” is right.

6.

"To be or not to be? That is the question.
To be and not to be, that is the answer."
/Marjorie Orr/

Nice and  right quotation.
=====================..

P.S.

Does Infinity have any physical parameters?

I have many answers : “ NO ”.
But I think they are wrong.
I think the Infinity is Vacuum in the state of: T=0K.
!!!
=========================..

 

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #55 on: 21/09/2008 15:27:55 »
I think one day we will know what came before our universe and will have at our disposal, little baby-making universes.  I've grown to believe it's all a matter of dynamics and the quantitative changes occurring when those dynamics breech a critical point:  like water changing to ice when the critical point of freezing is reached:  the concept of swimming looses meaning when this occurs.  There is no swimming in ice: There are no (I believe) physics like ours on the other side of the Big Bang critical point.  If true, then our concepts of matter, space, time, and energy, cause and effect, beginning and ending,  may not be applicable to the state of the pre-existence.  Something qualitatively different which we have not yet created, must be used to describe it because of the critical point which separates our world form it.  
 

Offline Eddie

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #56 on: 22/09/2008 14:11:19 »
Hi Socratus,

Yes; scientists work in guages which are mostly balanced totalities. Yet history has taught that the boundaries of these totalities need to be continually extended. As you say, they cannot work with a concept like 'infinity'.

I think the reason is that science is primarily a process of thinking of an idea to explain how things are and then observing if that idea correctly describes what is in the experienced world. In ordinary circumstances you cannot experience infinity.
The big bang theory fits what science observes...at the moment.... but this, ofcourse, does not mean it is an absolute truth. It still needs testing till something else comes along, if it does.

I'm interested in your vision;

"Infinity is vacuum in the state of; T=OK

but I don't understand it.
Would you be willing to explain it in more detail to people who are not too bright, like me.

Regards,
Eddie.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #57 on: 22/09/2008 19:33:34 »
Hi Socratus,

Yes; scientists work in guages which are mostly balanced totalities. Yet history has taught that the boundaries of these totalities need to be continually extended. As you say, they cannot work with a concept like 'infinity'.

I think the reason is that science is primarily a process of thinking of an idea to explain how things are and then observing if that idea correctly describes what is in the experienced world. In ordinary circumstances you cannot experience infinity.
The big bang theory fits what science observes...at the moment.... but this, ofcourse, does not mean it is an absolute truth. It still needs testing till something else comes along, if it does.

I'm interested in your vision;

"Infinity is vacuum in the state of; T=OK

but I don't understand it.
Would you be willing to explain it in more detail to people who are not too bright, like me.

Regards,
Eddie.

==================================
At first of everything the Universe is Infinite Vacuum
in the state of T=0K. Why?
Because it is visual fact.

The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang).
But this state is limited and temporary.
Why can it be limited and temporary ?
Because in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces
 without any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state
T=0K. Only  mass and energy  can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
 But the detected material mass of the  matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
  p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it  cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
 the Universe  is “ open”, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists  search for “ dark matter” because it will save the
“ law of gravitation “ as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is  zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
 the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
 
 ==============..
P.S.
If somebody belief in “ big bang”, he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.

=================…


 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #58 on: 23/09/2008 07:16:37 »
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #59 on: 23/09/2008 14:31:55 »
Take a look here

http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html
===========================
Questions from article:
http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html
 
1.
what happened BEFORE the big bang,
 2.
whether there was a "before."
3.
what may have happened in a "pre-big bang."
4.
"What banged? Where did it come from?"
5.
"Is ours the only universe? If so, how did it come to exist?"
6.
What are :
“the big bounce," "the multiverse," "the cyclic theory,"
"parallel worlds," even "soap bubbles."………
 7.
What is:  "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang."
8.
……
particle smasher might discover extra dimensions

What are the extra dimensions: 4-D...etc ?
9.
“ shadow”……
travel between parallel universes ………..( !!! )
and cast a "shadow" that scientists might be able to detect. ……..
The shadow might take…….

/ one more scientific  fairy - tale /   
10.
Last August, ground and satellite observations revealed
what appeared to be an enormous "hole in the universe,"
a mostly empty region of the sky, 900 million light-years
wide - about 5 billion trillion miles -…………

Where are the gravitational waves here ?
11.

At a Vatican conference in 1951, Pope Pius XII said the big bang was consistent
with church doctrine.
"Creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"
 the pope declared.

The theological explanation of the world's existence
 cannot ( !!!) lie at a different level  from scientific understanding.

The materialistic world gets its finite being
 from an infinite being.!!! (T=0K )

The universe that cycles endlessly through creation and destruction...
{between Vacuum and  Materialistic world.)!!!
=========================..
Many questions and the answer is one: T=0K.
!!!
==============================…





 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #60 on: 29/09/2008 16:46:37 »
What is our intellect ?

1.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory ./
2.
It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
3.
When asked which interpretation of QM he favored,
Feynman replied: "Shut up and calculate."
4.
when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student
at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject.
"You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted
by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious
business and produce some results."
"Shut up," in other words, "and calculate."
And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it.
/ N. David Mermin /
5.
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
6.
“ Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them.”
/ John von Neumann ./
7.
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman./
8.
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
 /Dirac /
9.
Etc……..

Conclusion from some article:
"One of the best kept secrets of science is that physicists
have lost their grip on reality."
================= .
P.S.

What is our intellect ?
We can see this practically :
after “ big bang “ all Galaxies run away from us.
#
This is our normal intellect in our normal Orwell’s farm.

 =================..
 

Offline rosalind dna

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2019
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #61 on: 29/09/2008 17:56:06 »
The CERN Physcists won't know until the LHC starts working again next year as it's at present out of action.

We will find out one day if there was a "before" the Big Bang or it was just a load gases ready to happen that started off the galaxies/universe that's now. Or not But it was a bit too
hyper then and even though I did find it fascinating watching/listening to the start of the LHC in early September.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #62 on: 30/09/2008 05:38:54 »
Comment by Rick.

Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.

And well high energy particle physics has been the big budget
backbone of physics, and yet the type of physics they engage in,
is not the type of physics you see in the every day world.
It just doesn't apply to anything other than supercolliders.

Giant electro-magnets essentially. It is the physics of giant electro-
magnets and so it knows nothing about mass, and everything about
what happens in a giant electro-magnet.

Now the problem arises when you take what you have done in a giant
electro-magnet and try to say that this is how the universe works. No,
this is how a giant electro-magnet works.

And so then you see people spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of
dollars trying to make a fusion reactor, based on information from a
giant electro-magnet. And all attempts have failed. Not only that, but
the recommendations made have been, look, first go back and learn how
things work, because clearly you have not got a clue what you are
doing, or how atoms work at all, so before you spend another hundred
billion dollars on yet another project which shows zero results,
perhaps you had better learn some real physics.

And that true, because you see you can do experiment after experiment
and get absolutely nowhere, if your theory is wrong in the first
place. You will just look for results that match your hypothesis, and
you will make erroneous conclusions, and you will make further
erroneous assumptions, and none of it will be accurate, and none of
it will lead to any useful predictions.

You know its clear to me, that either the people at the LHC do not
know much about atoms, or they are merely playing Devil's Advocate,
because they are claiming that they will be sending mass or matter
around the collider at almost the speed of light, and special
relativity says that to say that you can do that means you know
nothing much about physics at all.

So then when they send em waves around there they call those
particles, and when they send em waves around there they can just make
up whatever they want and they just say well energy is the same as
mass.
But E=mc2 is not about em waves it is F=ma
See how it is just renamed? Isn't a cute trick to rename old formulas
and everyone will think you are amazing?
Like Newton renamed F=ma to w=mg same thing again.
So energy equals mass times the speed of light but it is not electro-
magnetic energy, it is force. Kinetic energy.
Much of physics is about renaming things in a confusing manner in
order to make yourself famous.
To answer your question about what is the intellect, there is a
technical answer such as that your capacity depends on your computers
capacity and your software (your brain and your capacity to reason),
but there is another answer and that is that intellect is uncommon,
common sense.

Rick.
 rick_so...@hotmail.com
=============================
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #63 on: 06/12/2008 07:45:09 »
"What existed before the Big Bang?" What existed before the "theoretical" existence of the known universe? What is perfectly clear is that the answer to this question is completely unknowable. Why, because the 'Big Bang' is a theory, not a fact. Extrapolating from a theory is the very definition of speculation, and therefore qualifies as a thought experiment, and not grounded science. This distinction must be established, if we intend to maintain scientific integrity. All of the theories herein are interesting, and creative, yet fall within the realm of pure speculation, not established science. Why, because there is no well established fact as to the existence of the Big Bang theory. It is as yet a theory, not a fact, and any extrapolation from such, is subject to serious criticism.
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #64 on: 06/12/2008 16:06:01 »
This is a profoundly misguided view of science.
ALL of science is theory - that is how it functions. There is no dichotomy between theory and fact. A theory is a model of various phenomena based on observation and experiment (fact). People constantly confuse this with the everyday use of the word 'theory' - ie a speculation or hypothesis. The use of the word 'theory' in science is very different.
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #65 on: 06/12/2008 21:33:54 »
Comment by Rick.

Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.
So I presume your proposal is to adopt a pseudo-scientific approach to the matter?
When you say there are problems with the standard model I notice that you don't actually say what they are. I presume you mean the inability of the standard model to account for mass and for gravity? In that case then what better way to proceed than to look for the Higgs Boson and the Graviton? What would you prefer? Speculation?

You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of science. Experiment is not done to confirm theory - just the opposite in fact.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #66 on: 06/12/2008 21:57:04 »
Comment by Rick.

Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.


Problems? Or gaps in our understanding? The reason for the difference in mass of some particles is as yet unexplained, as Bikerman said; but that doesn't mean it will forever be inexplicable. Maybe the LHC will throw some light on the subject. Don't write off a current theory (in this instance, the Higgs boson) simply because we haven't yet proven its existence.

Also, again as Bikerman said, science is not about proving theories. It is about trying to explain why things are the way they are. Scientists don't just pluck theories out of thin air. There are 2 approaches - the top down approach where what is observable is studied and a theory developed to fit, and the bottom up where predictions about the real world are sought from theoretical considerations. Wild speculations fit into neither of these.
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #67 on: 21/12/2008 08:10:14 »
Re: Birkeman, "All of science is theory - that is how it functions." This statement reflects a truly limited understanding of established scientific understanding and methodology. Sound theories are grounded upon science that is verifiable, and predictable, as well as accord with, primarily, and constitute laws and principles, derived from observation, and logical deduction; the very essences of scientific 'truth'.  Must we not distinguish between hard science; well established, and verifiable, and soft science, (theory and speculation}, that dilutes rational thought. Merely restating, or varying an idea or concept, does not expand or validate the concept. True understanding is a function of direct insight, and knowledge. Such understanding is not necessarily amenable to ordinary perception. A  greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #68 on: 21/12/2008 08:56:53 »
HERE is a good 1 for you - Loop Quantum Cosmology. Boing Boing!
 

Offline TECHFACTOR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Too Boldly Go!!!
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #69 on: 22/12/2008 21:07:58 »
 I think that what was here be for the universe is still here today. I imagine that our universe is inside A dimension one among many just like our galaxy or our solar system or our planet etc.etc.etc.I think this dimension was impacted by another floating in space.except instead or floating through dark matter as we do "inside" our dimesion our dimesion floats through gravity itself...when the two impacted each other there has A exchange of materials;bam the big bang. No one knows and may never know?Think of what makes you feel comfortable and that is what it is;until proven other wise...(If the universe had no life in it too see and wander;would it really exist???)TECHFACTOR:OUT
 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #70 on: 23/12/2008 04:54:53 »
Re: Birkeman, "All of science is theory - that is how it functions." This statement reflects a truly limited understanding of established scientific understanding and methodology. Sound theories are grounded upon science that is verifiable, and predictable, as well as accord with, primarily, and constitute laws and principles, derived from observation, and logical deduction; the very essences of scientific 'truth'.  Must we not distinguish between hard science; well established, and verifiable, and soft science, (theory and speculation}, that dilutes rational thought. Merely restating, or varying an idea or concept, does not expand or validate the concept. True understanding is a function of direct insight, and knowledge. Such understanding is not necessarily amenable to ordinary perception. A  greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein.
Err...I think you have missed the entire point, and gone off on some postmodernist ego trip.
What is this gibberish about 'greater, larger perception' and 'obvious truth'? Sounds like religion to me.
Science does not deal in 'truth'. It models observable reality. As observation and experiment progress then the models progress. That is basic.
'Soft science' as you put it, is hypothesis (ie not confirmed by experimental/observational data). Theory is different (although both words are frequently misused in common parlance). A genuine theory is the work of many scientists over time, explains many related phenomena, has been tested independently and survived the testing. That does not make it immutable - simply the best model we currently have. Thus Quantum Mechanics (particularly QED) and Relativity are the two current models/theories in physics. We KNOW that Relativity is incomplete - there is no question about it. It may be that an existing hypothesis (m-theory for example) could offer a way forward. It may not - I'm sceptical. SOMETHING, however, will have to emerge to take us to the next level and enable a new model/theory to emerge which can go where the current theory breaks.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #71 on: 24/12/2008 19:48:19 »
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:

Hello

I have a question I can't get my head around.

If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.

So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it? What was existence before the big bang?

What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing? (maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)


What do you think?

Right. First of all, yes you are right, despite some scientists interpretations of the infinite concept of birth from nothing situation, so this is hard to talk about, because these differences exist for many other differences. In relativity, if space just began at big bang, then so must have time as well, because in the end, the Minkowskian Equations describing space and time, is linked them as four-matrix spacetime dimension. The unity of the birth of time, would be the same as the birth of space, and vice versa.

So there may be no escaping this, as current theory suggests, with a great deal of evidence, some would argue proof. There is however, another option. There is a theory called the Ekpyrotic Thoery, which is  revolutional, but bold theory (which some have argued is at best, speculational), suggests that the universe was in a frozen state before big bang. It also says this could have continued for eons. Maybe hundreds of eons.

The big bang was result, (under this theory), of a collision with this universe with another. We call these brane collisions, and under an Everett Interpretation of quantum mechanics, this would suggest that layers all superpositioned together, have a flux, in which only two universes bend into each others existences. The strong interelation, may as well be related to the gravity and collapses in the wave function. This collision is supposed to have ''awoke'' the dorment energy in  this universe, so the Ekpyrotic Theory can be seen not only a mechanism for the energy and spacetime in this universe, but also giving a timen (literally), before big bang.
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #72 on: 26/12/2008 06:48:38 »
Re: Birkeman, "a greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein," applies specifically to your spectacular statement that all science is theory. If you are suggesting, but not specifically, or otherwise indicating that "all" science is essentially provisional, than, without realizing it, we are actually in accord. But to proffer that all science is theory, without qualification, is manifestly wrong. Your distinction between a formal theory, and the 'casual' understanding, employed in common parlance, does not justify, or elucidate your usage, in any logical, or scientific sense. Therefore, please explain, without your inappropriate or helpful insults, exactly why, "all of science is theory," and how such theory functions as science. My purpose is to discuss, explore, and learn, through rational, and hopefully friendly dialogue, the essence, or a least the most reasonable explanation/s within a given subject under serious consideration. If my take is unreasonable, it is not intentional, quite the contrary. Please simple point to the fallacy in my opinion; point by point, in a logical and rational manner, if your goal is to maintain scientific integrity. If you can teach me, stretch my mind, correct my mistakes, I benefit.

I offer a few examples to make the argument that all science is not theory. Constructing bridges, skyscrapers, cars, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, and so forth, require concrete scientific understanding, not theory. At the point it is possible to construct anything, based upon theory, it is no longer theory, but demonstrated fact. At the point it is possible to verify and demonstrate all of the relevant elements, or constituents that scientifically characterize a theory, it is no longer a theory, but fact. The best example is perhaps the ancient theory that the earth was flat, and harbored edges. Exploration and scientific observation proved otherwise. Therefore the theory was replaced with fact. There are many such examples. This fact of science is hopefully obvious, and requires no further explanation.           
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #73 on: 26/12/2008 11:50:30 »
Well Joshua, I'm mighty glad you asked this question, yuletime and all:)
There is a very interesting but somehow forgotten explanation to it.
Why it's forgotten, well as all true geniuses this one also is misunderstood by the doubting masses...
And now without any further ado, allow me to present the true and definite explanation to 'it all'.

" It starts on that plane where the smallest of our particles forms from the fuzzy weave of possibilities, every thing we call reality, is just one of the possible directions those particles that build us and our world takes and took, simultaneously and continuously, for every moment in time. But then, you may ask. How do you explain that we only experience this reality? Ah, to that there are some different answers, the simplest, being to accept that we exist as we do, because that is the only possibility we can experience. There is off course that alternate explanation of the old man of Krell.

It states that probability has a difficult case of hay fever and that our worlds are like soap bubbles floating from his nose created by his sneezing. What will happen when the pollen season is over we don't know though. It may be that all worlds end. This doesn't imply that there can't be alternate world lines, even if they, from our point of view, have a lower probability, or if you like, a nonexistent reality.


Now, bear with me. Our reality had always had the strongest probability. The proof of this is easily found when viewing backward in time. Backward because that is the only way we can view, or for that sake make conclusions of what might really be. Nothing can be said to exist until that moment of probability have been passed into the wake of history and therefore left us with the indubitable result of its existence. Like that paycheck you've got last month, remember it? So huge when you waited for it to materialize, so pathetically small after you used it.


So now you're getting a headache? Don't worry, it can only get better. Time travels then, can we travel back in time? Of course we can, whenever you remember your loved ones you are there, in a way of speaking. But in the same way as your remembrance may not be the exact replica of the actual experience, so will your traveling backward in time not deliver you to the world line that you went out from. And now you wonder, what will then happen to my world line if I go back and kill my forefather? Nothing, I say! Nothing. The probability of you finding your self in that exact world line that you've followed since your birth, before jumping backwards that is, is nil and not existent. So kill him if you like and be done with it. Be aware though, that you might find it hard to find your way home afterwards.


So you say, as you happily contemplate your new possibilities of getting even with those slights and hurts you collected through your childhood, what then about coming back after said fact, that is, traveling forward in time again? Here we have two simple outcomes, the first consider you getting back to your own world line. Even if it may seem to you as to belong in the future, in fact it actually belongs to your past. In that way you can travel back with impunity, as long as you accept that the chances of you finding you way back to your own world line are somewhat less than zero.

Or we can put it this way, the chances of you winning the lotto every day of your life, are immensely greater than you going 'forward' to your original world line, in fact you will find uncountable world lines, just not yours. But to travel where no possibilities ever have crystallized, where no worldline yet exist, where nobody threaded before, the unknown future. That my friend is a No No. That is in the hands, tentacles of? Who knows??


In the end, according to the old man of krell, all the different world lines will flow into one continuous ocean, as entropy increases with all matters and energy you had, into that relaxing state of inert uniformity. And that my friends, are going to be one timeless heck of a vacation, where all finally can enjoy their well deserved rest.

But before this happy occasion I'm afraid that we will have to suffer that, for every action one chose, or may chose in time, simultaneously there will be created alternate actions, in which endless versions of one self splits out immediately in differentiate world lines. Which in their turn will split up in endless. And the same goes for every phenomenon, material as metaphysical..

seen in another light one could say that time grows backward, that we are merely observers sitting still, seeing and reliving time as it unfold itself backwards into 'history' . And where that would leave the old man of Krell ? Well, ?? Awhh the ... "

And now, there can be no more questions to ask I say :)

 

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #74 on: 26/12/2008 20:32:13 »
Re: Birkeman, "a greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein," applies specifically to your spectacular statement that all science is theory. If you are suggesting, but not specifically, or otherwise indicating that "all" science is essentially provisional, than, without realizing it, we are actually in accord.
Well, firstly why not try to get my name correct without the implied insults?
Quote
But to proffer that all science is theory, without qualification, is manifestly wrong. Your distinction between a formal theory, and the 'casual' understanding, employed in common parlance, does not justify, or elucidate your usage, in any logical, or scientific sense. Therefore, please explain, without your inappropriate or helpful insults, exactly why, "all of science is theory," and how such theory functions as science.
Certainly. Theory is the word used for a model of perceived reality. Other words such as 'truth' are entirely inappropriate. We know, for example that all models are just that - models. "The map is not the territory".
Now, that does not mean, or even imply, that a specific model is wrong. It simply allows for the fact that it is incomplete. Thus the Newtonian model of gravity works well, but if you apply it inappropriately (ie to systems moving at high relative velocity, or within a large gravity well), then it simply doesn't work.
The same applies to Relativity. If you apply it appropriately (ie to macroscopic observation) then the model holds. When you try to apply it to the quantum world, however, the model breaks. Likewise the model of the quantum world is incomplete - when we try to describe observable reality in quantum terms then we have the 'enigma' of the wave-function collapse, which we don't really understand.
Now, given that our models are incomplete then it is entirely inappropriate to talk in terms of certainty and truth. That does not mean we have to adopt some post-modernist interpretation where all views are equally valid. Nor does it legitimate the term 'provisional' - that implies much more 'uncertainty' than I believe is warranted. We are stuck, therefore, with the word 'theory' to describe scientific models. Now, I fully understand that this word is not ideal. In common parlance it means speculation, whereas in scientific use it means so much more. I would be quite happy to consider another 'untainted' word for scientific models of reality, but each alternative has its own problems. Maybe the only workable alternative would be to coin an entirely new word. Until that time, however, my point stands - science consists of theory.
Quote
I offer a few examples to make the argument that all science is not theory. Constructing bridges, skyscrapers, cars, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, and so forth, require concrete scientific understanding, not theory. At the point it is possible to construct anything, based upon theory, it is no longer theory, but demonstrated fact. At the point it is possible to verify and demonstrate all of the relevant elements, or constituents that scientifically characterize a theory, it is no longer a theory, but fact. The best example is perhaps the ancient theory that the earth was flat, and harbored edges. Exploration and scientific observation proved otherwise. Therefore the theory was replaced with fact. There are many such examples. This fact of science is hopefully obvious, and requires no further explanation.           
No...wrong. Firstly science is rarely obvious (that is why the basic questions are often the deepest). Consider one of your examples - constructing a bridge. We cannot accurately predict the behaviour of a bridge. We can model it with appropriate degrees of 'certainty' but when the physics become chaotic (with differential load patterns, wind harmonics and other factors) then the best models give a spread of possible outcomes. The same applies to your other examples. What we do is construct our 'kit' with a safety range, statistically determined, to make it as safe as we reasonably can.
Take the simple example of the Earth that you cite. It isn't round...it is an oblate spheroid. But that is just the start. It changes shape constantly due to the effect of tides, plate tectonics, volcanic activity and so on. Far from 'requiring no further explanation' we find that we need very complex models indeed and that those models are always approximations, not 'true'.
Try modelling a bridge (or the shape of the earth) really accurately and you will quickly see the problems. You need to incorporate relativity and QM into your model. It simply can't be done - we don't have the computational power to predict the quantum interactions of simple molecules, let alone complex engineering or 'natural' structures. We work on approximations which, all being well, will serve the purpose. To think of these approximations as 'fact' or 'true', however, is both untrue and dangerous.
In short, what we can do is say that certain hypotheses are false - that is no problem at all. When, however, you try to reverse that and say that certain theories represent some sort of truth then you run into the fundamental problem of induction. Hume realised this centuries ago and Popper proposed falsification instead. Nothing has changed.
« Last Edit: 27/12/2008 03:41:54 by Bikerman »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What existed before the Big Bang?
« Reply #74 on: 26/12/2008 20:32:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums