Cause of the Big Bang

Thx for the link.
Crunchy Cat said:
Hard to say. I suspect it has a higher probability of being a real dimension than an illusion.
Click to expand...
As far as 'time' goes, I refer to "All that exists is NOW. There is no past. There is no future. There is only NOW."
And that time is a human construct to explain a phenomenon we don't understand


You master-baiter you :p.
Click to expand...
Word's out huh?;)
 
quantum_wave said:
General Relativity is a big part of BBT, as is the cosmological principle, and of course inflation. When I talk about the implication and you say there is no implication, perhaps you can address this difference in our understanding. General Relativity features spacetime, a "fabric" of space that is warped by mass. Based on astronomers observations of expansion and accelerating expansion, the age of the universe in BBT is postulated to be 13.7 billion years. Putting together the coupling of spacetime and backtracking the expansion, BBT "implies" a zero volume, infinitely dense "point space", which I have been lead to believe says that the big bang originated from nothing. Like you, I have trouble with there ever having been "nothingness". This is one of the features of BBT that I love to hate so are you trying to deprive me of it :)?
Click to expand...

This is an easy one. An infinitely dense point-space is "something" :). Of course that original theory doesn't address what surrounds the point. No inferences, implications, or even speculations.

quantum_wave said:
I have to say that I didn't think M-theory was purely inflationary in that the membranes themselves are not said to be eternally inflating, only the intersections are particularly inflating, our observable universe being one intersection. I prefer not to have to go to multiple dimensions if there is a simpler lower dimensional option that is equally consistent with current observations and providing it doesn't depend on the supernatural.
Click to expand...

While inflationary theories and M-theory have different foci, they are compatible. M-thoery tends to propose that brane inflation is a result of throat blistering, handle wraps, and collisions in Calibi Yao space.

quantum_wave said:
That machine is part of what makes these "intestine times". Much like the sailing ships of the fourteen hundreds and orbiting rockets of the late last century.
Click to expand...

Exciting it is yessum.

quantum_wave said:
The cyclical crunch bang theory is discredited by the fact that electromagnetic radiation does not respond well to being recalled by the gravitional pull of the crunch, at least as I understand what I am recalling about it. Each cycle would "lose" some energy, and after a finite number of cycles there wouldn't be enough energy recalled by the reverse entropy cycle to cause the next bang. What I did like about it was that it didn't require nothingness. Unfortionatly, since it was supposed to have an infinite history, time was its enemy :) because eventually it would result in either a big rip (de Sitter universe expanding with no matter left, or a final big crunch. Someone might be able to convey the current thinking better than I can.
Click to expand...

The only way a system can lose energy if there is another system to accept it. Also, with the very real gravitational force what is currently called "dark matter" and the sea of virtual particle energy at our universe's disposal, there is still ample room for a rather crunchy outcome to our universe.
 
Tht1Gy! said:
As far as 'time' goes, I refer to "All that exists is NOW. There is no past. There is no future. There is only NOW."
And that time is a human construct to explain a phenomenon we don't understand
Click to expand...

You might be right. When the quantum world is examined at very small scales, time seems to just disappear.

Tht1Gy! said:
Word's out huh?;)
Click to expand...

I think I saw a youtube video on it :blbl:.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
This is an easy one. An infinitely dense point-space is "something" :). Of course that original theory doesn't address what surrounds the point. No inferences, implications, or even speculations.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right. With due respect, if you call an implied "point space" containing all of the energy of our known universe "something" then we have to talk about if you think that anything is impossible. I was hoping you would agree that the "zero volume" part of the phrase "zero volume infinitely dense point space" was equivalent to "nothingness".

But I am glad you acknowledge that if our famous "BBT point space universe" can be called "something", then are you not completely comfortable that there was nothing surrounding it. It is almost a paradox but we know that "we can't know so it is worthless to speculate" is the common response.
The only way a system can lose energy if there is another system to accept it. Also, with the very real gravitational force what is currently called "dark matter" and the sea of virtual particle energy at our universe's disposal, there is still ample room for a rather crunchy outcome to our universe.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree. In the line of reasoning, forward thinking on all of the most likely alternatives, i.e. speculation, is not all "idle" or "wild". Reasonable and responsible speculation isn't anti big bang theory at all. Modifying existing cosmology is how the game of change is played, and in my view there are a few modifications needed once in awhile just to show that the scientific method is still being applied. Only noteworthy changes make the press level where most people get their dose of science :), and they need to be given a tid bit every once in awhile to help with public support.
 
quantum_wave said:
You are exactly right. With due respect, if you call an implied "point space" containing all of the energy of our known universe "something" then we have to talk about if you think that anything is impossible.
Click to expand...

There are many things that are impossible of course. One of those impossibilities is the existence of "nothing".

quantum_wave said:
I was hoping you would agree that the "zero volume" part of the phrase "zero volume infinitely dense point space" was equivalent to "nothingness".
Click to expand...

Zero volume means the corresponding quality (volume) has no quantity. Infinitely dense means the corresponding quality (density) has all quantity. Put 'em together and you've got a serious case of "something" there.

quantum_wave said:
But I am glad you acknowledge that if our famous "BBT point space universe" can be called "something", then are you not completely comfortable that there was nothing surrounding it.
Click to expand...

It's not even a matter of comfort. Any inflationary theory that examines what's outside our universe shows that quite a bit of "something" is there. In fact there is no theory that proposes "nothing" is real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top