Debating the Big Bang: Exploring Its Existence, Origins, and Evidence

[Nicool003]

This was in PF version 2.

These questions were discussed and will or probably will be discussed in this topic.

Did it happen?

How did it happen?

How can we tell if it did or didn't happen?

When did it happen? (and no saying "when the universe was created")

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Nicool003
Did it happen?

How did it happen?

How can we tell if it did or didn't happen?

When did it happen? (and no saying "when the universe was created") [/B]

Let me sum this up :
BB ?

Seriously though :
1. Probably, BUT I do not support the out of
"nothing" hypothesys. So, it's not the "simple"
version in my opinion.
2. Fast ?
Really though, I have no idea. Do you ?
3. Through "boring" science projects ?
4. About 13.7 billion Earth solar cycles ago according
to the recent CMBR measurements which are
said to provide great accuracy (that is, a mistake
factor of only 100-150 million years if I remember
the articles correctly.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[elas]

The actual CMBR was well below the predicted figure and the usual "adjustments" had to be made to bring the figures together.
These figures take us back to about 3,000 light years after BB. So we are relying on a period "when the laws of physics did not work" in order to cover the first few seconds.
Add to this the question "what caused the BB?" and you should begin to realize that once again we have either to believe in magic or abandon the concept and start looking for something a little more believable.
This is the sort of questionable theory that brings Relativity and Quantum physics into disrepute in the opinion of other branches of science, who are not prepared to accept that the unbelievable or anything beyond comprehension, should be put forward as a scientific theory.

 

[Einstiensqd]

Big Bang go bye-bye

The big bang is impossible for several reasons. For one, general relativity absolutly forbids it. The mass and energy of the emerging universe, as I stated in Impossibilities of the Superstring Theory, would cause it to contract into a 'supercylinder', constantly expanding upwards, with a diameter equal the length the superstring.

 

[Einstiensqd]

Also this belongs in the theoretical physics section.

 

[Nicool003]

Drag- The theory is that it came out of atoms colliding etc.

I don't support it fully either which led to me making this topic in the old PF and this one.

Also this belongs in the theoretical physics section.

No it doesn't. This was in Astronomy and Cosmology back in PF 2 but this is no longer a sub forum to that forum. Probably because you can only have a subforum attached to one forum in this new version. Anyways it was moved here from astronomy in the old PF and it will remain here.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Einstiensqd
The big bang is impossible for several reasons. For one, general relativity absolutly forbids it.

Actually, General Relativity is one of the "theoretical pillars" of Big Bang Theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Drag- The theory is that it came out of atoms colliding etc.

Actually not. According to the theory, there were no atoms at all until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

The B.B.T. does not have an explanation for the root cause of the event (just an explanation of what has unfolded since the initial starting point).

No it doesn't. This was in Astronomy and Cosmology back in PF 2 but this is no longer a sub forum to that forum. Probably because you can only have a subforum attached to one forum in this new version. Anyways it was moved here from astronomy in the old PF and it will remain here.

In general, Nicool003 initial questions are suited for the A&C forum. However, things like Einstiensqd's post are suited for the Theory Development forum. We can keep an eye on this topic to see how it evolves to see which forum it can reside in.

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Einstiensqd
The big bang is impossible for several reasons. For one, general relativity absolutly forbids it. The mass and energy of the emerging universe, as I stated in Impossibilities of the Superstring Theory, would cause it to contract into a 'supercylinder', constantly expanding upwards, with a diameter equal the length the superstring.

Wrong, you are talking apples and oranges. There is plenty of evidence for the big bang. So we have to find theories that accommodate the evidence.

 

[Nicool003]

Actually not. According to the theory, there were no atoms at all until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

Sorry evidently I was not thinking when I made the post... I was busy at the time if I remember write. I was typing an essay/report on WWI for History and I wanted to go on PF so I was doing both at the same time Sorry! So guys let's get this started this isn't a "where should this topic be" debate

 

[elas]

My proposal for what happened before the universe expanded to 300,000 light years is on the Creation page of http://elasticity2,tripod.com

 

[elas]

Link not woking try again on
http://elasticity2.tripod.com/crtn.htm

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nicool003
This was in PF version 2.

These questions were discussed and will or probably will be discussed in this topic.

Did it happen?

How did it happen?

How can we tell if it did or didn't happen?

When did it happen? (and no saying "when the universe was created")

All these questions become clearer if consider them from such point. It is ñorrect to speak of not begin and the end of universe, but about begin and the end of its next Time Cycle. The final condition after termination of the cycle is initial for the following one. Since of except time and light nothing more does not exist in universe ( all observed by us phenomenas this manifestation of these two), that each cycle begins and ends from the light.

 

[chosenone]

well if you want a hypothesis on the idea it did happen,how why and where did the heat come from.if matter was compressed into a single point in a collapsing star.matter could'nt be squashed any more.so gravity instead folded spacetime around the infinite point of matter,gravitationally entrapping the matter and the heat at the heart of the sun.then the sphere of spacetime expanded,the pressure on matter was gone,so it exploded,and the heat is from the super heat matter from the suns center!

 

[Nicool003]

I could see how that would work with a collapsiong star but how would that work with the big bang? There was nothing in existence before the universe correct?

 

[elas]

I could see how that would work with a collapsiong star but how would that work with the big bang? There was nothing in existence before the universe correct?

Are you admitting that you cannot imagine the 'collape Of nothing' as a possible cause of the 'creation of something'? How else can the creation of Zero Points be explained?

 

[off_world_beings]

2 cents worth...

The big bang is 'beyond' Plank Era.
The laws of physics fail beyond Plank Era.
Time does not exist beyond Plank Era.
Time is a concept, not a reality.

The Unified Field(as well as electromagnetic, gravity, etc.) are 'below' Plank Scale.
Time does not exist below Plank Scale.
Time is a concept.

Beyond the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, is beyond Plank Scale.

That which is beyond Plank Scale does not adhere to the concept of time.

It is Timeless, Eternal.

It is now.

The Big Bang is here now, beyond Plank Scale.
That power sucks Galaxies into Black Holes and disintegrates matter, time, and space.

It is here at the beginning, it is here now, it is here at the end.

It is the Unified Field, whose power holds the Universe(or universes) in exquisite balance.

It is timeless, eternal, and unbounded by space time.

I am it.
You are it.
We are it.

It is the source and totality of our minds...those same minds which generate the concept of time, space, and seperation, beginning and end.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"
off_world_beings say, "Before the big bang, I AM, and there ART THOU"

The Universe is the Dance of the Lord, the play and display of the wonder that is the Self of your own mind.

Jai Guru Dev.

 

[meteor]

Time is a concept, not a reality.

I do think that time is a reality. In general relativity time is the
fourth dimension of spacetime, different to the spatial dimensions though

The Unified Field(as well as electromagnetic, gravity, etc.) are 'below' Plank Scale.

I do not understand what do you mean here. Can you elaborate?

Beyond the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, is beyond Plank Scale

Not necessarily. The event horizon of a black hole can have various km. of radius, while the Planck scale is approximately 4*10^-35m.

 

[QuantumNet]

Absolutely no big bang

The universe is a net, mostly because this is the definition of a universe in which every point (as far as you can come a point)
is an origo.

The energy in the universe became small particles, in other words, places the net moves from or against with a spin.

A large part of the particles have formed homogene ether. The rest formed mass as we know it today.

Why the universe, seen from every point in it, is just as neverending.

If a man could be closer to one end of the universe than to another (which ceirtanly is not the case with us), then he would not be able to see the beginning of the universe in one direction by any means (since you also look back in time when you observe distant objects) and in the other direction, hey, this is creepy. Strictly forbidden in physics

That's an absurd thought.

It simply does not work.

Why don't you read The Net Theory?

 

[off_world_beings]

I'm not sure how these replies work, but this is for meteor:

Time is a 'quality' of another concept called, 'spacetime'.
Notice the words 'space' and 'time' are conjoined. There is a reason for this.

Time speeds up and slows down according to the observer.
For someone being dragged towards or into a black hole(if they could survive any of it) time would slow down for them, until, ultimately they would exist, suspended in time, until the end of the universe...that is...until the end of spactime... or thereabouts.

The same would be true of someone who was able to travel back in time to the Planck era. The Plank era designates the equivalent of a black hole event horizon(meaning that at some point through the event horizon time and space would disintegrate to 'nothingness' (or 'eternity' depending on your viewpoint)- otherwise it is not a black hole).

At the Planck scale, here and now, sitting at this computer, your time becomes non-reality. The underlying fields are not bound by space and time, and should exhibit the same quality - regardless of wether one studies them at the begginning of the universe, now , or near the end. They do not change or modify over time, like galaxies or evolution etc. Their characteristics and laws remain unchanged.

This characteristic is even more true of the unified field, which is theorized as the unification of the 4 fundamental forces of nature, the four fields.

Thoughts in the brain and the mind itself are epiphenomenon of fluctuating(but not altering or changing) unbounded fields, such as electromagnetic. There are no boundaries in space and time that limit these fields.

The human brain is essentially a direct result of the quantum wave nature of these fluctuations.
However, the human brain, having lost the ability to experience this reality, has emphasised boundaries and differences in nature, over its own reality - which is unbounded and beyond the limits of time - timeless. Our sense that time passes, and even history itself, is essentially an illusion, as the field nature of the underlying cosmic consciousness expresses itself in multiple forms and infinite varieties of nature.

 

[meteor]

I really don't know what you mean, but I see that you speak about a cosmic consciousness. Having spacetime appearing at time zero, -that is, Big Bang-, how do you explain the origin of this cosmic consciousness? That is, it appeared with Big Bang or appeared latter?
It's interesting to know because I find the idea of cosmic conscioussnes tantalizing, though I'm not very sure what is the origin of this cosmic conscioussnes. I have the idea that this cosmic consciousness can be related with the electromagnetic field, (and light being the carrier of information between differents parts of the consciousness), but this is only speculation of mine
I think that the 4 forces that you speak about are not unificable:
electroweak force and strong force are carried by bosons, but gravity is caused by the goeometry of space. The cause of gravity is very different to the cause of the other forces to unify them

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by meteor
... but gravity is caused by the geometry of space.

Have you ever played with the idea that gravity might be a property of the dynamic geometry of space? I mean that gravity (interconnectivity) shows up pure due the dynamics of spacetime (not as something separate, but still part of spacetime).

 

[meteor]

I would give half my life to know how mass-energy can bend spacetime, but the only thing that come to my mind is spacetime being some kind of elastic substance, and mass deforming it through breaking that substance, like the analogy of the rubber and the ball, but in 4 dimensions. When mass advances through spacetime, breaks spacetime in front of it, while spacetime behind it rejoin. Or it has to be a very intrincate mechanism, but it's sure beyond my imagination

gravity might be a property of the dynamic geometry of space?

Yes, I think that it's what's proposed by general relativity, no?

 

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by meteor
I would give half my life to know how mass-energy can bend spacetime, but the only thing that come to my mind is spacetime being some kind of elastic substance, and mass deforming it through breaking that substance, like the analogy of the rubber and the ball, but in 4 dimensions. When mass advances through spacetime, breaks spacetime in front of it, while spacetime behind it rejoin. Or it has to be a very intrincate mechanism, but it's sure beyond my imagination

Yes, I think that it's what's proposed by general relativity, no?

Then, read the thread "The Gravity Theory (TGT)"

The correct value of the gravityconstant is here calculated.

1/(c_average16pi)