- #31
ryan albery
- 67
- 1
I was just throwing that idea out there I suppose. Like a good buddy of mine once said, 'I'm pretty sure the physics works out.'
Big bang , physical constants , possibilities
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the origins of the universe, particularly in relation to the Big Bang, the nature of physical constants, and the evolution of physical laws. Participants explore philosophical questions regarding the state of the universe before and after the Big Bang, the implications of these states, and the potential for different physical laws to emerge under varying conditions.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Philosophical contemplation
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants propose that the universe's current state, with its specific physical constants and laws, evolved from an earlier state, raising questions about how these laws could have emerged at the moment of the Big Bang.
- Others argue that the origin of the universe is fundamentally unknown, suggesting it may have come from nothing or may have always existed.
- A participant challenges the framing of states A and B as unscientific without evidence, emphasizing that the Big Bang theory does not assert it was the universe's "birth" but rather describes a transition from a hotter, denser state.
- Some contributions highlight that our understanding of the early universe is limited, particularly before the Planck Epoch, and that discussions often venture into philosophical territory due to this lack of evidence.
- One participant mentions the concept of "quantum foam" and discusses chaotic inflationary theory, suggesting that different regions of the universe may have different physical laws, which remains speculative without a quantum theory of gravity.
- Another participant questions whether physical laws exist prior to the universe's expansion or are created in the process, suggesting that this distinction could affect the nature of potential universes that could arise from similar initial conditions.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the nature of physical laws or the implications of the Big Bang. Some agree on the speculative nature of the discussion, while others emphasize the need for scientific grounding in the claims made.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include the lack of empirical evidence regarding the state of the universe before the Big Bang and the unresolved nature of quantum gravity, which affects the ability to make definitive statements about the early universe.
- #32
- 19,378
- 15,614
ryan albery said:
Well, keep in mind that personal speculation is seriously frowned on here.
- #33
ryan albery
- 67
- 1
Yeah, I do understand that speculation on this forum unacceptable, but I don't think either of you guys understood what I was trying to say- in regards to the original question of this post.
- #34
- 19,378
- 15,614
ryan albery said:
Since we clearly don't understand what you were saying, I'd have to agree that we didn't understand what in meant in regards to the OP.
- #35
Drakkith
Mentor
- 23,202
- 7,685
phinds said:Please don't do things that make me agree w/ Drakkith. I hate agreeing with him
I wonder... can we "fix" you more than once? I don't know, but I'm willing to try.
- #36
- 19,378
- 15,614
ryan albery, what Drakkith is referring to is my avatar. He thinks I'm actually a dog. I've tried to explain to him that dogs can't type but he doesn't get it. He thinks I'm unusually smart. For a dog.
- #37
ryan albery
- 67
- 1
Physics is reality, by definition, that's all I'm trying to say... for being a dog.
Last edited:
- #38
Drakkith
Mentor
- 23,202
- 7,685
phinds said:
I don't remember ever discussing your mental aptitude.
- #39
Crazymechanic
- 831
- 12
as much as I know phinds from being on this forum his not only smart his also sarcastic on many occasions , how does that go together with the description of a dog? He also has an avatar of a white polar bear , probably an alter ego for a dog. :D
Now that you are done trying to find something funny about my infantile jokes,..
Back on the topic, I would somehow like to agree to what ryan allbery said , and quite frankly not that he is the first one who has ever said this , I think the idea is as old as everyting around us.
Yet the question is perfectly legit I think, how does a universe or space time while being literally created on spot and rapidly changing evolving and all kinds of things and yet it falls just into the right proportions etc so that we can look now back at it and say , a universe was born and yet here we are.
Without the assumption that the laws must have come if not before it as tere were no time hence no space then atleast , well ok this is the tricky part , how do the laws come before the space time itself?
Well normally when we build something we always make schematics and calculations first and only then we do it otherwise nothing but chaos comes out , but it's hard to apply such terminalogy to the birth of the universe as if there was no time before it then nothing could have been made or changed or etc.Yet somehow in the context of the universe the laws happened to fall out just right on the spot together with the mass and space itself so that all could form as we see it.
After all I said , try to think about it assuming no God , any metaphysical force involved, any previous universes etc etc , assume the best model we have for now , assume nothing before it, sounds kinda weird doesn't it?
Now that you are done trying to find something funny about my infantile jokes,..
Back on the topic, I would somehow like to agree to what ryan allbery said , and quite frankly not that he is the first one who has ever said this , I think the idea is as old as everyting around us.
Yet the question is perfectly legit I think, how does a universe or space time while being literally created on spot and rapidly changing evolving and all kinds of things and yet it falls just into the right proportions etc so that we can look now back at it and say , a universe was born and yet here we are.
Without the assumption that the laws must have come if not before it as tere were no time hence no space then atleast , well ok this is the tricky part , how do the laws come before the space time itself?
Well normally when we build something we always make schematics and calculations first and only then we do it otherwise nothing but chaos comes out , but it's hard to apply such terminalogy to the birth of the universe as if there was no time before it then nothing could have been made or changed or etc.Yet somehow in the context of the universe the laws happened to fall out just right on the spot together with the mass and space itself so that all could form as we see it.
After all I said , try to think about it assuming no God , any metaphysical force involved, any previous universes etc etc , assume the best model we have for now , assume nothing before it, sounds kinda weird doesn't it?
Similar threads
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 65 ·
Undergrad
Question about the big bang singularity
- · Replies 13 ·
- · Replies 22 ·
High School
Big Bang and Infinite Universe
- · Replies 20 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 25 ·
- · Replies 5 ·