OK, so I’m hanging out in space before the big bang right….
Posted: 11 June 2008 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2008-06-11

VVV not important to topic VVV

i first want to go on record saying i stumbled on this site ( on a topic about sending information faster than speed of lite, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3163/P105/) and just want to say that i am very fascinated with space and what not, but also ...not that well educated on it. The only things i know are very general and from books i pick up and read at Barnes and Noble grin anyway my point is i am interested in things about science and space.


VVV main topic VVV

ok so before the big bang there was no time right? and i was reading in before mentioned thread that there “may” be places in the universe that time is not present (or sumthing like that) but my question is…

how is time not there?

if i was alive before big bang just chillin out in what ever is there outside the little bunch of mass that is about to be the universe with a clock wouldnt time tick on the clock… wouldnt i get older?

maybe i am thinking of it wierd but aside from the fact that it is impossible to exist before big bang… if i was there before the universe was created…how would time not be existant?

thank u for opening my thread and reading grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2008 08:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

It is a real problem.

Basically the standard model suggest that that before the big bang there was nothing. No time and no space, so there was no where to stand and observe as well as no when to observe. Much like many of our physical models of the universe, (including relativity) they seem to defy common sense. For example, the chair I sit on feels solid, but our best science tells me that it is actually most certainly made up of mostly empty space with a relatively small amount of atoms and some forces that, working at the atomic level make it appear solid to my macro senses.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2008 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2008-06-11
cgallaga - 11 June 2008 08:28 PM

It is a real problem.

Basically the standard model suggest that that before the big bang there was nothing. No time and no space, so there was no where to stand and observe as well as no when to observe. Much like many of our physical models of the universe, (including relativity) they seem to defy common sense. For example, the chair I sit on feels solid, but our best science tells me that it is actually most certainly made up of mostly empty space with a relatively small amount of atoms and some forces that, working at the atomic level make it appear solid to my macro senses.


so basically ur saying there is no answer? just faith?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2008 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Nope.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2008 06:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

One solution is to reconsider (or consider more deeply) what is time.  What if time was nothing more than an idea that we’ve derived from motion?  We notice an object in motion and describe it in terms of ratios of other moving objects.  We see two events and we order them (from our perspective) in a continuum of our own construction.  The time description we give these events is so useful to us that it seems to have its own existence.  But what if the existence of time as an actual physical noumenon is nothing more than a figment or our imagination?

If that is the case, then “before” the big bang simply means there was no motion.  How long was there no motion?  That’s the question that can’t be answered because we need motion to give us a sense of time.

PC

ETA:  So how is there not time?  There isn’t time if there isn’t any motion,  What if you arrived before the big bang?  You can’t imagine doing so without introducing motion.  Would clocks tick?  Not if they were motionless.  Would you get older?  Not in any measurable sense since there would be no growth nor decay without motion.  Further, even if you had eyes you couldn’t see anything without moving photons.  You couldn’t hear anything without moving pressure waves.  You couldn’t even think about it all without the chemicals sloshing about in your skull.  But aside from all that, you really were there before the big bang.  And so was everything else.  It just took the equivalent of 14 billion motions around our sun to get all the parts moved into their current places.

[ Edited: 12 June 2008 07:04 AM by the PC apeman ]
 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2008 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

Well there is this “Before the big bang” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2008 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2008-06-12

Others have touched on it, but the answer is mainly just because our concept of time and mass and energy and matter have no relevance before the big bang. There might have been something before it, there might not have been. The point is that we really have no way of knowing (at least not right now). Our entire conception of energy and matter began at the big bang, and so those concepts don’t really provide us with any useful knowledge about what happened before they existed.

We’re talking about the entire universe here, not just some clump of matter that exploded and went on to form stars and planets. It would be impossible for you to be outside the singularity prior to the big bang.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2008 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

JodoKaast is correct.  The answer to the question isn’t the point.  Rather, it’s that the question has to be meaningless within the definition of the big bang, so there is no answer.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2008 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  42
Joined  2008-06-10

I find it tremendously difficult, despite scientific knowledge (though there is non at this specific moment in time) that all space and time was created by the big bang. If you boil this theory down, you end up with “In the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing blew up and became everything”. This is where science and religion really start duking it out. Science needs, wants to prove this theory and the only answer we can resolve from it is, religion has the answer. Your faith and beliefs are the answer. Since science has been out to prove religion wrong since day one, you can see the contradiction and why there is no true answer. Science refuses to acknowledge it and seeks other possibilities which, there aren’t any. 

The ONLY possible, feasible way for this to hold water is, if we use Einstein’s equation (E=MC^2) in reverse, energy converted into mass rather than the mass of an object converting into energy. If I have this equation right, when you convert energy into mass it would be a sort of implosion rather than explosion, making the big bang a big suck. So a $#%^ load of energy suddenly became mass and created everything we know of. Trouble is, where did this energy come from? The string theory? Strings of energy vibrating in the 10th dimension crossed paths and created a universe in the 3rd and 4th dimension? Then what made the strings? Does it continue on with with the Chaos theory? Is it like looking at Fractal Geometry with infinite iterations? Strings in even higher dimensions creating more in lower dimensions? Where did they come from? Does it ever stop? Does it ever actually begin? So the only answer that can even start to answer the one about our own universe raises a million other questions about other universes and dimensions, because they would have to exist for the theory to work. Once you pass that point, you are no longer answering questions you are creating more theories and not developing solid proof.

Of course speculation of a higher, all knowing being could be construed as theory to some scientists. So those who have religious beliefs and scientific beliefs will have to agree to disagree. Without arousing a billion more unanswerable questions. Makes the mind reel a bit no?

[ Edited: 15 June 2008 09:22 PM by awisemanoncesaid ]
 Signature 

_Common sense isn’t so common_

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2008 04:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

I find it tremendously difficult, despite scientific knowledge (though there is non at this specific moment in time) that all space and time was created by the big bang. If you boil this theory down, you end up with “In the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing blew up and became everything”.

This is not a fair representation of the Big Bang theory.  The initial condition was very hot and very dense.  Not nothing.  In the beginning, there was everything -  but it was not configured as we see it now.

PC

ETA:

Without arousing a billion more unanswerable questions. Makes the mind reel a bit no?

Not really.  I only see one truly unanswerable question:  Why is there something instead of nothing?

[ Edited: 16 June 2008 04:53 AM by the PC apeman ]
 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2008 06:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28

Read this fascinating article from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm

Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’

A team of physicists has claimed that our view of the early Universe may contain the signature of a time before the Big Bang.

Their model may help explain why we experience time moving in a straight line from yesterday into tomorrow.

Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space. From inside the parent universe, the event would be surprisingly unspectacular.

“Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water, you’re learning about the Big Bang,” Professor Carroll explained.

In his presentation, the Caltech astronomer explained that by creating a Big Bang from the cold space of a previous universe, the new universe begins its life in just such an ordered state.

The apparent direction of time - and the fact that it’s hard to put a broken egg back together - is the consequence.

If the Caltech team’s work is correct, we may already have the first information about what came before our own Universe.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2008 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
deezfields - 11 June 2008 08:40 PM
cgallaga - 11 June 2008 08:28 PM

It is a real problem.

Basically the standard model suggest that that before the big bang there was nothing. No time and no space, so there was no where to stand and observe as well as no when to observe. Much like many of our physical models of the universe, (including relativity) they seem to defy common sense. For example, the chair I sit on feels solid, but our best science tells me that it is actually most certainly made up of mostly empty space with a relatively small amount of atoms and some forces that, working at the atomic level make it appear solid to my macro senses.


so basically ur saying there is no answer? just faith?

I believe cg is saying there is no reliable answer, IOW, we don’t have an answer. “just faith?” is meaningless in this context.

To understand the point, you must think about it in terms of the methods of acquiring knowledge, not by assuming that we are given to know the answers. Every step forward in human knowledge has been gained in that fashion. The role of Faith, which is very important, assumes a different definition of Faith than the one you seem to apply. Creative Faith is that the search for knowledge will yield productive ends, NOT that we can say in advance where it will lead us. That is the Faith that drives science, art and virtually every useful human endeavor.

There is an empirical basis for that kind of Faith, but we have no guarantee that any particular act of Faith will yield a good result. That is why Faith is a creative force for good. But when you twist the meaning to “I believe it, therefore it is so,” it becomes a destructive force in human affairs, not a creative one. These are two completely different definitions of the term.

Maybe in some far distant future, humans will acquire knowledge by “faith” in the sense you seem to mean it, but there is absolutely no evidence for that, no reason to believe it and a moutain of empirical data proving that it don’t work like that.

The question you’re asking is usually asked as a challenge or comeback to the person who honestly admits that he doesn’t know the answer to something. Many people are ashamed to admit that they don’t know. This is a grave mistake, which has caused mountains of misery. Human ignorance on a plethora of subjects is the fact, Jack. You can’t change it by wishing it away.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2008 06:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2008-06-19

The thing about time is that our human brain is only able to grasp the linear concept of it, whereas theoretical physics allows time to be non-linear. Basically time is only a dimension we travel along with height and depth, there is time.

On the other hand, they have come up with 11 dimensions and I believe they’ll invent more to justify their mathematical models.

In any case, other Universes and dimensions are going to be irrelevant to us, as humans because we will never be able to see them physically as long as we’re limited by our physical bodies. One day, perhaps in millions of years, if the human race is not extinct, evolution might allow us to see them.

But ourselves. We cannot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2008 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2007-09-14

There is a huge problem in science regarding the “arrow of time”, and this inevitably leads to discussions about the highly-organized “initial state” of the visible universe.

This is a set of topics that has interested me for years, and I’ll try to breifly share what I’ve learned:

1) Every possible thing we see or otherwise measure has a limited extent in space - “the edge of the visible universe”, and reaches back to a limited point in time - “the big bang”.

2) The known universe is, according to the best theories of cosmology and physics, unambiguously larger than the visible universe.  This comes from the well-established notion of “cosmic inflation”, which implies that a vast majority of the space, time and matter of our universe lies beyond the 14.5-billion light year boundary marking the edge of our possible investigation.  There is a huge amount of “stuff” out there in our universe we can never, ever see or visit because we’d have to go faster than light to ever reach it.

3) There are several variations on idea about a prior universe emptying out to a flat, starless, lightless, boring universe, and then experiencing a statistically tiny but real phenomena whereby a transient “bump” in its spacetime “blew up” to become our universe.

4) Conversely, there are ideas that multi-dimensional “branes” (from tthe word membrane) lie in a hyper-universe (or hyperverse) of which our spacetime is just a trivial part.  Sometimes, the theory goes, these branes brush into one another, and this causes Big Bangs, resulting in universes that bubble out into the hyperverse like foam bubbles.

5) Nothing accessable to humanity, or any material or energetic component of our universe can ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, contact, interact or measure anything in any other universe, much less the hyperverse.  This doesn’t mean these other universes aren’t “real”.  It’s rather more like the fact that the speed of light puts a limit on what is ever physically possible in our own universe:  There are boundaries we simply cannot cross because of the things the laws of nature allow or forbid.  However, there are some “artifacts” such unobservable realities have on our own universe, such as low starting entropy, an open-ended expansion and perhaps even relatively more pedestrian phenomena like virtual particles and the wave-particle duality which together strongly imply (or discount) features of a separate, untouchable reality.  In any case, the distinction between philosophy and physics can get blurry in such situations, especially as it becomes absolutely and literally impossible to experimentally verify certain conjectures.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2008 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28

tscott wrote:

In any case, the distinction between philosophy and physics can get blurry in such situations, especially as it becomes absolutely and literally impossible to experimentally verify certain conjectures.

Very true, so philosophy is the only way we can mentally make sense of such phenomena.

Consider the enigma of dark matter/energy(DM/E). When we look at the universe with our most advanced telescopes and satellites, how much of it can we see/measure? Only 4%. The rest of it, DM/E (96%) cannot be seen/measured. So how much do we know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11dark.t.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

But is our luck about to run out? Smoot’s and Perlmutter’s work is part of a revolution that has forced their colleagues to confront a universe wholly unlike any they have ever known, one that is made of only 4 percent of the kind of matter we have always assumed it to be — the material that makes up you and me and this magazine and all the planets and stars in our galaxy and in all 125 billion galaxies beyond. The rest — 96 percent of the universe — is ... who knows?

And gravity, the mysterious ‘force’ permeating the universe…instantaneous action at a distance. The hunt is on for gravitons and the ‘massive’ Hicks boson dubbed ‘God particle’ which confer mass to itself and all other particles with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) starting in August 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

When activated, it is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson, the observation of which could confirm the predictions and “missing links” in the Standard Model of physics and could explain how other elementary particles acquire properties such as mass.

The total cost of the project is anticipated to be between US$5 and US$10 billion.

Concerns have been raised regarding the operational safety of the Large Hadron Collider and the possibility that the high-energy particle collisions performed in the LHC might produce dangerous phenomena, including micro black holes, strangelets, vacuum bubbles and magnetic monopoles.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile