The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What was before the big bang?  (Read 44989 times)

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #150 on: 12/09/2015 21:52:27 »
Quote from: Timey
Ok, so if everything did pass from one cycle of the universe into the next, this argument is null and void?

 If everything passes from one cycle to the next, this must include time; yes?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #151 on: 12/09/2015 22:41:56 »
Quote from: Timey
IF a "perfect vacuum' where to exist, and I expected to find the energy to pop a particle out of this perfect vacuum - that I would be forced to look at the Casimir Effect.


 By “a perfect vacuum”, do you mean “absolutely nothing”?  If so, where would the particle come from; where would the energy come from, and where would you get the waves for the Casimir Effect?
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #152 on: 13/09/2015 00:16:26 »
Goodness Bill, you don't ask for much do you? :)

Obviously, I just dunno!  If I did I'd be shouting from the rooftops.  I really do not understand enough about this area of quantum mechanics to even begin to guess.

Yes... I do mean that this proposed 'perfect vacuum' is entirely empty.

As a logical enterprise, if we 'can' consider this perfect vacuum, ie: the nothing before creation, to be a physical reality, we have to consider that this nothing is going to be unlike anything we have ever seen.
Again, in as much as the Big Bang theory states the Big Bang as a special circumstance, is there anything special about this nothing that we can identify?
The first thing that occurs, and here I am using muti-verse or multiple verses as an offset again, is that if there were truly nothing at-all, then this situation in itself may constitute some kind of physical reaction.
If this strange thought were to hold any merit at-all, then stripping a normal vacuum down to its bare essentials and beyond, in conjunction with an analysis of the time scale factor 'might' be of significance.
Again, seriously, I'm not nearly enough well read in this area of QM regarding the configuration of states, nor the potential, or indeed non potential of virtual particles to comment as to any detail.

Maybe someone else has some suggestion...
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #153 on: 13/09/2015 16:16:23 »
Quote
As a logical enterprise, if we 'can' consider this perfect vacuum, ie: the nothing before creation, to be a physical reality…..

Considering “nothing” in this way seems to be quite common in scientific circles.  My favourite quote from Lawrence Krauss is: “By nothing, I do not mean nothing…..”


I have yet to find a way round the idea that if there was ever nothing, there would still be nothing now.  There are lots of “universe from nothing” ideas, but the nothings always seem distinctly somethingy.   
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #154 on: 13/09/2015 17:35:09 »
Well yes Bill, so it would seem!  The point I'm trying to make is:

That if everything is physically absent, then nothing is the physical result.  This defining nothing as being something.

What is wrong with viewing nothing as being 'something'?  It 'might' prove beneficial to do so on an experimental basis... In any case, and especially if one were to be interested in a moment of creation that has its beginning in the microscopic region.  Which would actually seem to me to be the most logical scenario for the first instances of creation, when considering the concept of a cyclic universe.

If there wasn't ever nothing Bill, how do you account for progression?  Are you saying that there was something before the moment of the creation of our universe?  And if so, are you saying that the something before the moment of creation of our universe had a something that was before its moment of creation, and so on?  Was there ever not a 'something' for a universe to be created in?  What is it that creates that something?

Looking at nothing as being that something is but a more simplistic approach.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #155 on: 13/09/2015 21:40:24 »
I’ve just returned from a dog walk, about an hour which includes some thinking time.  What was I trying to think about? – Nothing!

Two things stood out:
1. We have few, if any, words with which to talk about “nothing”.  Our language is geared to talking about something.  With due respect to your question:  “What is wrong with viewing nothing as being 'something'?”  It makes less sense than saying: “What is wrong with viewing black as being white?”  It might be possible to make a case for either, but unless we are consistent in our use of language/terminology we tend to go round in non-productive circles.

2. “Nothing” cannot exist.  There is quite a lot more to be said about that, but I just wanted to run the thought past you before saying anything else.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #156 on: 13/09/2015 22:57:37 »
Ah now see, this is what I like about you Bill, you have a knack for progressive thought structure... :)

In that you are making a case for nothing not existing, obviously you are not convinced by my argument: 'if everything is physically absent, then nothing is the physical result'... This based upon the fact that it 'is' the existence of everything that we are attempting to understand within the question.

Ok, you say that stating that nothing is something, is in as much as stating black is white.  In this case, unlike our poor 'nothing', both of the properties, black and white, are already determined as being something, so the analogy is lacking. But in that we are assuming a change from one state to another, if we are to make a parallel...
Taking black as being the state before creation and white as being the created state of everything, we can see that all we have to do is add x amount of white to the black state and it will become white.
Taking this analogy, if we can determine nothing as a state of reality, and then we add x amount of everything, x being the bits of everything necessary to account for creation, then nothing becomes everything in the same way that black will become white.
 

Offline Mordeth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #157 on: 14/09/2015 00:49:22 »
Still talking about nothing, eh?  It cannot be defined.  You may as well ask if the number 37 is a Republican.  If "nothing" existed ontologically, then it would be something.  Therefore, "something" is the ontological default.  Can you perceive nothing perfectly?  No, because you always perceive yourself. The closest you can come is a deep loss of consciousness. When you awake, it appears you have experienced nothing, not even time. But even this is not true nothing.
 
As for something coming from "nothing", please review this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3232 [nofollow]

In particular:

“Although we have analyzed only one version of the Emergent Universe, we would argue that our analysis is pointing to a more general problem: it is very difficult to devise a system – especially a quantum one – that does nothing “forever,” then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time.”
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #158 on: 14/09/2015 02:32:29 »
In our human perception of nothing, nothing is already defined as a description of an absence, or a mathematical concept.  As a meditative state of consciousness?  I don't even want to go there at-all, this incorporates a different branch of physics, interesting, but not relevant here.

You seem to have forgotten that earlier in the thread we already covered the concept of divorcing infinity from the time aspect, whereas for the case of an infinite state of nothing, we found that there was no need to add time back in.  Nothing has no time, therefore nothing, if it were to exist as a state in QM, would not be 'everlasting' in its description of infinity.  In fact the possibility exists that nothing, if we 'could' parallel its time line in relation to a time aspect, might only have been in existence as a fleeting phenomenon, with time and everything else emerging smoothly as a continuum of a natural progression from nothing.
A state of the lowest entropy really does need to be set at 0 doesn't it?  If not, then what are the parameters for the instance of the state of lowest entropy?

You say that nothing, in the context that we are using it, cannot be defined.  I beg to differ.  Anything can be defined.  Sometimes, in fact for the most part, this only requires that one change ones perspective to the problem.

Both you and Bill are saying that nothing cannot be a physical reality because there is nothing there.  I turn the matter upside down and state that because everything being absent is a physical reality, that nothing is the physical result of the physical reality of everything being absent.
Just like with algebra, because I have absolutely no doubts about the fact that everything is a physical reality, this being my determined parameter, the fact that I can physically absent everything from the equation determines the physical result of this action being that we are physically left with nothing.  That is logic, and I don't think my logic is flawed.  If you think it is can you show me where?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 51 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #159 on: 14/09/2015 13:24:49 »
In our human perception of nothing, nothing is already defined as a description of an absence, or a mathematical concept.  As a meditative state of consciousness?  I don't even want to go there at-all, this incorporates a different branch of physics, interesting, but not relevant here.

You seem to have forgotten that earlier in the thread we already covered the concept of divorcing infinity from the time aspect, whereas for the case of an infinite state of nothing, we found that there was no need to add time back in.  Nothing has no time, therefore nothing, if it were to exist as a state in QM, would not be 'everlasting' in its description of infinity.  In fact the possibility exists that nothing, if we 'could' parallel its time line in relation to a time aspect, might only have been in existence as a fleeting phenomenon, with time and everything else emerging smoothly as a continuum of a natural progression from nothing.
A state of the lowest entropy really does need to be set at 0 doesn't it?  If not, then what are the parameters for the instance of the state of lowest entropy?

You say that nothing, in the context that we are using it, cannot be defined.  I beg to differ.  Anything can be defined.  Sometimes, in fact for the most part, this only requires that one change ones perspective to the problem.

Both you and Bill are saying that nothing cannot be a physical reality because there is nothing there.  I turn the matter upside down and state that because everything being absent is a physical reality, that nothing is the physical result of the physical reality of everything being absent.
Just like with algebra, because I have absolutely no doubts about the fact that everything is a physical reality, this being my determined parameter, the fact that I can physically absent everything from the equation determines the physical result of this action being that we are physically left with nothing.  That is logic, and I don't think my logic is flawed.  If you think it is can you show me where?

If we have two values of energy where A is positive and B is negative then we can have a situation where A + B = 0. You then have a mathematical nothing and yet the energy has not gone away.
 

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #160 on: 14/09/2015 13:55:27 »
Apart from if you talk absolute (heading towards an absolute absence of energy) where you cannot have negative energy.

then A + B would never equal absolute zero. If you can have negative energy in the absolute scale it would be like having negative mass
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 51 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #161 on: 14/09/2015 18:51:14 »
Apart from if you talk absolute (heading towards an absolute absence of energy) where you cannot have negative energy.

then A + B would never equal absolute zero. If you can have negative energy in the absolute scale it would be like having negative mass

Not if we are talking purely in terms of kinetic energy. The kinetic energy in the direction of a gravitational field (free fall) can be considered to be negative.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #162 on: 14/09/2015 20:46:35 »
Quote from: Timey
In this case, unlike our poor 'nothing', both of the properties, black and white, are already determined as being something, so the analogy is lacking.

That’s why I said   “It makes less sense than saying: “What is wrong with viewing black as being white?”

Quote from: Timey
  Which would actually seem to me to be the most logical scenario for the first instances of creation, when considering the concept of a cyclic universe.

I’m a little confused; are we talking about a universe from nothing, or cyclic universes?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #163 on: 14/09/2015 21:15:24 »
Discussions about nothing tend to go round in circles and get nowhere in particular.  I suspect that one reason for this is precisely because it is nothing.  “Nothing” is not really defined in physics for the simple reason that it is not a physical entity.  “Nothing” is a mental concept that rational beings have devised in order to try to talk about the absence of anything/everything.  It is reasonable to think of the physical world as being present even when there is no intelligence to perceive it; but can we say the same about nothing?

Scientists tend to say that they accept things that science can study and define.  By this token, “nothing” is not a subject for science. 

Perhaps the best we can say is that there is nothing in science that shows us a way in which something can emerge from absolutely nothing; so it is reasonable to argue that there can never have been nothing, otherwise there would be nothing now.   The only way in which there could be nothing in the future would be if everything annihilated itself completely.  The accepted conservation laws indicate that this is not possible.  We know that there is something now, so, rationally, “nothing” has no past and no future. It’s present exists only in our minds.

(Edit) Reading through that, it sounds dogmatic, it's not intended to be; it's just out there for discussion.
« Last Edit: 14/09/2015 21:18:17 by Bill S »
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #164 on: 15/09/2015 11:14:08 »
Saying that nothing, in this context, cannot be defined as a physical reality, because the fact of nothing defines that there can be nothing there - this is a circular argument.
Algebra has its basis in the fact that one can use a parameter that is already defined as an offset to defining the parameter that you are trying to define.  I think that the logical argument that I have used in this instance holds up...

However, I am not going to try further to change your opinion Bill.  One either can see the logic of what I am saying or they can't.  I recognise your argument, I just think mine gets round it...

Scientists tend to say that they accept things that science can study and define.  By this token, “nothing” is not a subject for science. 

Here you are very wrong.  Nothing in the form of a 0 has been the source of much scientific interest.  Since it's discovery as a concept, 0 has been opening up new doors in both mathematics and physics to great importance.
It is a much more difficult proposition to determine the physics of how a universe that doesn't start from nothing began.  In as much as the conservation law negates everything turning back into nothing, the second law tells us that a state must tend to disorder.  These difficulties being the very reasons why it is that so many of the theories state the universe as having started from nothing, including the most widely accepted theory, the Big Bang.

You say you are confused.  ""Am I talking about a universe out of nothing or a cyclic universe?""
What I am doing is looking at the possibility of a cyclic universe that finds its moment of creation in the microscopic region out of nothing.  That each cycle of the universe is larger in size than the last.
This scenario upholds both the second law and the conservation law.

Apart from if you talk absolute (heading towards an absolute absence of energy) where you cannot have negative energy.

then A + B would never equal absolute zero. If you can have negative energy in the absolute scale it would be like having negative mass
o

Not if we are talking purely in terms of kinetic energy. The kinetic energy in the direction of a gravitational field (free fall) can be considered to be negative.

Jeff, that is really interesting!
If we have a 0 state that can hold kinetic energy in the negative, could quantum fluctuations arise under those circumstances?  Do quantum fluctuations carry mass?  If the answer to these questions is yes, I can see the possibility that perhaps the time aspect that we need for these fluctuations to occur in 'could' perhaps be related to mass ""through"" kinetic energy... ??? 
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #165 on: 15/09/2015 17:29:46 »
Quote from: Timey
However, I am not going to try further to change your opinion Bill

If you can show me how something could emerge from absolutely nothing, I would change my position in an instant, and thank you for doing so.

Quote from: Timey
Nothing in the form of a 0 has been the source of much scientific interest.

That’s true, but “0” is a mathematical concept, it is not “nothing”.  We might look into an “empty” room and say: “There’s nothing in here”.  Obviously, that could be challenged, but none but the most pedantic would do that in  normal circumstances.

The same sort of thing happens in discussions about infinity.  It is often argued that Cantor showed that infinities are amenable to mathematics.  These are mathematical infinities; “absolute infinity” remains unassailed.

Quote from: Timey
In as much as the conservation law negates everything turning back into nothing, the second law tells us that a state must tend to disorder.

Disorder, yes; annihilation, no. 

Quote from: Timey
  These difficulties being the very reasons why it is that so many of the theories state the universe as having started from nothing, including the most widely accepted theory, the Big Bang.

In what way does the Big Bang Theory say that the Universe started from nothing?  To make that claim, the BBT would have to be extrapolated back beyond the BB.

Quote from: Timey
What I am doing is looking at the possibility of a cyclic universe that finds its moment of creation in the microscopic region out of nothing.  That each cycle of the universe is larger in size than the last.
This scenario upholds both the second law and the conservation law.

“…finds its moment of creation….”   Fine sounding words, Timey, but what do they actually mean?  How can nothing find anything in order to become something?

What do you mean by creation?  I believe the present Pope has just acknowledged the BB as the moment of Creation (not that he is the first Pope to do that). I doubt that is what you are talking about, but I must not jump to conclusions.

 “….each cycle of the universe is larger in size than the last.”  Are you saying that more matter/energy is being created with each successive cycle, or simply that the universe expands further each time?
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #166 on: 15/09/2015 19:08:35 »
Quote from: Timey
Nothing in the form of a 0 has been the source of much scientific interest.

That’s true, but “0” is a mathematical concept, it is not “nothing”.  We might look into an “empty” rooim and say: “There’s nothing in here”.  Obviously, that could be challenged, but none but the most pedantic would do that in  normal circumstances.

Mathematics and concepts are interchangeable.  One is describing the other and visa versa.
If the universe is a physical reality, which we know it is and have described it as being so mathematically to some great degree, then if we absent everything physical out of it, then everything is physically absent and nothing is the physical result.  This is not some clever word play.  This can be described as a mathematical equation as well as a concept.
Yes, for sure, I agree with you that we are left with a nothing that appears a bit somethingy.  Good, that's the whole point.  Now we have a basis for everything emerging from this nothing that has remained a bit somethingy, on the basis that this nothing is not so nothingy as one might have imagined.  We can in fact actually work with this kind of nothing, whereas the nothing you describe is, I agree, completely useless.  Because we are looking for a description of where and how everything came to be created, to use the reality of everything to determine the reality of nothing is logical.

Quote from: Timey
In as much as the conservation law negates everything turning back into nothing, the second law tells us that a state must tend to disorder.

Disorder, yes; annihilation, no.

I don't understand where annihilation  comes into it.  You'll have to explain where you are coming from with that one.

In what way does the Big Bang Theory say that the Universe started from nothing?  To make that claim, the BBT would have to be extrapolated back beyond the BB.

The Big Bang theory states that everything originated from a point.  A point being a geometrical reality of 0 space and content.

What do you mean by creation?  I believe the present Pope has just acknowledged the BB as the moment of Creation (not that he is the first Pope to do that). I doubt that is what you are talking about, but I must not jump to conclusions.

Yes, I am talking about the first moment of creation.  I'm looking for the 'physics' of it.  Religion is a separate issue in my book, although religious people may say whatever they feel relevant concerning physics, no problem.

“….each cycle of the universe is larger in size than the last.”  Are you saying that more matter/energy is being created with each successive cycle, or simply that the universe expands further each time?

I'm looking at the possibility of more mass/energy being produced during a cycle that increases the size each cycle.  The initial cycles of the universe being of the microscopic, experiencing growth in size and duration, until the dimensions and duration reach the universe that we observe today.

(Edit: I'm sorry, I can't seem to make that multi quote work properly Bill, you'll just have to manage :). )

(Edit 2: think I've sorted it now :)).  )

(Edit 3: I give up !!! Arghh...

(Edit 4: Cracked it! :)
« Last Edit: 15/09/2015 22:40:08 by timey »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #167 on: 15/09/2015 21:33:53 »
It took me some time to work out the multiple quotes.  Even now, if I don’t do it for a while I have to work it out again.

Quote from: Timey
Mathematics and concepts are interchangeable.  One is describing the other and visa versa.

Just because A describes B doesn’t mean that A is B, or that they are interchangeable.

Quote from: Timey
if we absent everything physical out of it

Point of interest: If you absent everything physical, what are you left with?

Quote from: Timey
This can be described as a mathematical equation as well as a concept.

John Barrow has an interesting comment on mathematical existence.
 
“Gradually mathematicians lighted upon a new concept of existence.  Mathematical ‘existence’ meant only logical self-consistency and this neither required nor needed physical existence to complete it.  If a mathematician could write down a set of non-contradictory axioms and rules for deducing true statements from them, then those statements would be said to ‘exist’.” 

Quote from: Timey
I agree with you that we are left with a nothing that appears a bit somethingy.  Good, that's the whole point.  Now we have a basis for everything emerging from this nothing that has remained a bit somethingy, on the basis that this nothing is not so nothingy as one might have imagined

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this, but to me it says: Something can come from nothing, as long as the nothing is really something.

Do we have a referee?  :D
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #168 on: 15/09/2015 22:07:32 »
Just because A describes B doesn’t mean that A is B, or that they are interchangeable.

If A minus A = B, then of course A is not B.  To initiate an interchange between a state of B and a state of A, we must then find another factor, let's say C, to equate with.

Point of interest: If you absent everything physical, what are you left with?

You are physically left with nothing.

John Barrow has an interesting comment on mathematical existence.
 
“Gradually mathematicians lighted upon a new concept of existence.  Mathematical ‘existence’ meant only logical self-consistency and this neither required nor needed physical existence to complete it.  If a mathematician could write down a set of non-contradictory axioms and rules for deducing true statements from them, then those statements would be said to ‘exist’.”

Yes, which goes to show the importance of defining ones terms, in the instances of both mathematics and logic.

Quote from: Timey
I agree with you that we are left with a nothing that appears a bit somethingy.  Good, that's the whole point.  Now we have a basis for everything emerging from this nothing that has remained a bit somethingy, on the basis that this nothing is not so nothingy as one might have imagined

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this, but to me it says: Something can come from nothing, as long as the nothing is really something.

Do we have a referee?  :D

(chuckle)... No need for a referee!  No... you are not misinterpreting this.  The basis of requiring a nothing that 'is' a something has been the whole point of my venture. :)
« Last Edit: 15/09/2015 22:33:30 by timey »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #169 on: 15/09/2015 22:41:04 »
Quote from: Timey
Yes, I am talking about the first moment of creation.  I'm looking for the 'physics' of it.  Religion is a separate issue in my book, although religious people may say whatever they feel relevant concerning physics, no problem.

Religion aside, doesn’t creation require a creator?  Would that be someone/something outside the nothing from which everything was being created?

Quote from: Timey
I'm looking at the possibility of more mass/energy being produced during a cycle that increases the size each cycle.  The initial cycles of the universe being of the microscopic, experiencing growth in size and duration, until the dimensions and duration reach the universe that we observe today.

Would I be right in thinking that this would involve a continuous creation of new matter/energy; similar to the steady state theory, but a bit less “steady”, in that it would come in cycles?

Quote from: Timey
No need for a referee!  No... you are not misinterpreting this.  The basis of requiring a nothing that 'is' a something has been the whole point of my venture.

As John McEnroe used to say: "You cannot be serious!!!!!"
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #170 on: 15/09/2015 22:59:11 »
Religion aside, doesn’t creation require a creator?  Would that be someone/something outside the nothing from which everything was being created?

Now you are bordering on philosophy... I am looking for a physical reaction that initiates the creation of the universe,

Would I be right in thinking that this would involve a continuous creation of new matter/energy; similar to the steady state theory, but a bit less “steady”, in that it would come in cycles?

I anticipate an interplay between clumped mass and the black hole phenomenon that produces more particles.

Quote from: Timey
No need for a referee!  No... you are not misinterpreting this.  The basis of requiring a nothing that 'is' a something has been the whole point of my venture.

As John McEnroe used to say: "You cannot be serious!!!!!"

I am in fact being deadly serious...
 

Offline Mordeth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #171 on: 16/09/2015 02:08:20 »
Quote from: timey

You say that nothing, in the context that we are using it, cannot be defined.  I beg to differ.  Anything can be defined.  Sometimes, in fact for the most part, this only requires that one change ones perspective to the problem.



Regarding nothing, there is nothing to talk about, as I have already laboriously explained.  You can't even conceive it.  You trick your brain into thinking you can, but in fact you cannot.  So you fool yourself.  A dangerous precedent.

And you say "anything can be defined".  You are flat wrong.

Please solve the following equation: 2÷(3-x) where x = 3. 

You will find this to be undefined. Also, a point in geometry is undefined.  There are also algebraic functions which are undefined, such as a singularity.

A verticle line itself has an undefined slope.

In quantum mechanics, if you know the momentum of a test particle, its position is undefined. And vice versa. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments timey.  It is a fundamental and intimate property of particles and waves in the subatomic world.

  I can go on and on if you like.  There are many things that are undefined, and not because we lack information, but rather it is intrinsic.  Like absolute nothingness.  Meaningless questions with equally meaningless answers, using undefined terms to explain unobservable events which formulate impossible predictions that lead to untestable conclusions.  Woe is us.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #172 on: 16/09/2015 02:33:36 »
Oh dear Mordeth...  Shall we all just give up the ghost and live with the inadequacies?

I'm not the only physics enthusiast who wishes to push the boundaries.

I'm not the only person who believes that 0 or nothing can be classed as something.

I'm also not the only person to believe that time and the way we perceive it may lead to answers that could reveal a theory of everything.

I am the person who has come up with an alternative time theory.  I do not wish to talk about this idea I have on 'this' thread.
What I am trying to explore here is the moment of creation, which to all intents and purposes, the evidence points to this scenario being started from nothing.

Therefore...an exploration into the potential of nothing is a logical approach, not saying that it will prove fruitful, but that 'is' what I am doing.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #173 on: 16/09/2015 15:25:42 »
Quote from: Timey
Quote from: Bill
Religion aside, doesn’t creation require a creator?  Would that be someone/something outside the nothing from which everything was being created?
Now you are bordering on philosophy... I am looking for a physical reaction that initiates the creation of the universe,

That doesn't answer the question, Timey.  Something must initiate this creation.  What I'm trying to find out is if that something is external or internal with respect to the "nothing" from which the "creation" emerges.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #174 on: 16/09/2015 15:41:55 »
C Bruce Rodgers asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Theologians have an explanation for the pre-bang state of the universe, but is there any scientific speculation on the source of the source?  Even a cosmic yo-yo started from something.

What do you think?

Theologians have an explanation for everything, but it is never predictive of anything testable and therefore of no interest whatever.

The test of a "pre big bang theory" will be that it predicts something like the observable universe and is consistent with whatever happens tomorrow.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #174 on: 16/09/2015 15:41:55 »

 

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