What was there before the 'Big Bang' ?

[Sam2001]

I'm reading a couple of books about the universe and the theory of the big bang fascinates me. The universe as we know it hasn't always been here. It started growing when the big bang exploded. But the universe is still growing.
Now, as I was thinking... try to imagine what was before the 'big bang' (birth of universe) nothing? I was thinking, now we go back to the aliens theory. What if there was an whole other galaxy before the one we live in now? A galaxy with aliens in it? And there was a massive explosion that created a whole new universe? Or maybe there still is a parallel universe where the aliens still live.

So 2 universes parallel to eachother. It could also be a way to explain all the alien visits. Maybe they come true some sort of port in the galaxy. Our spacetechnology isn't far enough advanced to prove that theory.

Sam

[krusty the klown]

Hmmm... you don't ask easy questions, do you?

This universe stuff starts to get really abstract the more you go into it - time dilation, gravitational lensing....? How do you conceive what was 'there' before the Big Bang?? Nothing? But how can there be nothing? The difficult concept to grasp (for me) is that we are so used to observing an event in within the same frame of time and space - like consider a bullet emerging from a gun: before the trigger was pulled, there was 'nothing' then after the trigger is pulled, the bullet emerges and starts travelling along in a certain direction. Can we use the same analogy with the 'big bang'? Could the 'emergence' of our universe be seen from 'outside' (wherever or whatever that is)?? The concept to grasp is that there are at least four dimensions to our existence in this universe ((x,y,z,t) - t=time). We are so used to considering three dimensions and that time is constant and unconnected - we only need to consider it this way to go about our day-to-day lives: where am I and what time is it! So, at the instant of the 'big bang', x,y and z = zero: the universe is an infinitessimal 'dot', but t=0 as well. So our universe is expanding in space and time. If we consider an object within our universe shortly after the 'big bang' that is travelling at the speed of light (e.g. a photon), then if we plot a graph with axes vertical = time, horizontal = space (x,y,z), then picture a cone shape standing on end, centered at (x,y,z), t = 0, the object will be travelling along the outer edge of the cone. Any object travelling along the edge of this 'light cone' travels at the speed of light and an object travelling slower than this will exist within the confines of the cone, hence an object travelling faster than light would be outside the cone and not be visible from within the cone. Something / someone existing before our universe would be outside our light cone. So what happens here?? Can they see our universe being born?? We can't see them, as they are outside our light cone and to see them, we would have to travel faster than light.

There could conceivably be other 'universes' within other light cones that are not visible to us (without exceeding the speed of light), similarly we would not be visible to them, as we are outside theirs.

Confused yet? I know I am http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Are there aliens, then? Why not?? To me, the concept that we are the only life forms in this universe is not only absurd, but also arrogant. Who do we think we are? We exist on a lump of space debris (that also happens to be a very beautiful lump of space debris, IMO) circulating around a very ordinary star. A couple of things act in our favour, though: firstly, Jupiter is rather heavy, which has the advantege of mopping up many asteroids that would have collided with Earth, thus allowing life to develop to the stage that it has. Secondly, the fact that our Sun is fairly ordinary works in our favour - very massive stars consume ther fuel and expire far faster than smaller ones. So our Sun has been burning for a long time, always a bonus if you want life to develop.

These fundamental things are quite important if you want to develop life over the period of a few billion years. Considering that typical galaxies weigh in the region of 2 to 3 * 10^11 Solar Masses, that makes quite a few rolls of the dice to hit the jackpot (favourable conditions for life). OK, so that doesn't mean there are 2*10^11 stars in a galaxy, but there are a lot. And there are a lot of galaxies...... Trouble is, they are a long way away and we can't travel very fast!

BTW, have you read the 'layperson's' books written by Prof. Stephen Hawking?? They are written in English and are very readable - definately not written for advanced nuclear astrophysicists, which is a refreshing change http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Krusty.

[medo]

Hello

This is only a small contribution to the discussion.

Total energy of the universe might actually be zero, and it was therefore really case of nothing-for-nothing. The reason that the universe can have zero energy and still contain 10 _50 tonnes of matter is because its gravitational field has negative energy. The sums show that two contributions can exactly cancel to leave zero. A convincing mechanism was found to explain how positive energy was channelled into matter, and an equal quantity of negative energy went into gravitational field. So in effect, all the cosmic matter was actually created for free. Once we realized this, it became credible to suppose that the universe began with space being empty, all the matter appeared later (but still pretty quickly) as a result of a natural physical process.
One of the most compelling pieces for the bing bang theory is the existence of universal background of heat radiation, which seems to be a sort of afterglow of the universe's fiery birth. This radiation has travelled across space more or less undisturbed since shortly after bing bang. It therefore provides a snapshot of what the universe was like near the beginning. Satellite measurements have determined that the spectrum of the cosmic heat radiation corresponds precisely to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.


Medo

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[krusty the klown]

Good old Mr. Hubble discovered that if he looked at a galaxy that was fairly close to us, the spectrum of light from the stars appeared to be shifted slightly into red (lower frequency). He then looked at a galaxy a bit further away and noticed that its' light was shifted more than the light from the closer galaxy he had prevoiusly observed. This was the case: the further he looked, the more 'red shift'. Frequency shift is purely a function of the relative velocities of the source and observer: a stationary ambulance with the siren on 100 yards away has the same observed siren pitch as one right next to you. I'm sure that we have all experienced the Doppler effect when an emergency vehicle passes at speed.

The interesting conclusion form Hubble's work was the observation that the further away you looked, the greater the red shift, hence a very distant galaxy is moving away from us faster than a closer galaxy. In other words, the universe is expanding spatially as well as temporally. Well, the temporal expansion is hardly surprising: we all know that time ticks foreward!!! More interesting is the spatial expansion - Hubble proposed a constant (the Hubble constant http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif ) which, depending on what value it takes, would cause the universe to either expand forever, expand and reach a stable stationary state or never quite make the stationary state and start collapsing back in on itself. Just picture this: if I fire a gun into the air, the bullet eventually stops and falls back down to earth; if I boult a really big gun, I could fire the bullet into the air and it would escape from our gravitational field, eventually coming to rest at 'infinity' (this is the escape velocity: 11.6 km/sec on Earth) the third situation is that having built the really big gun, I put a bit more gunpowder in and the bullet never comes to rest.

Unfortunately, we can't calculate the Hubble constant with sufficient accuracy to determine how much gunpowder was in the big bang, so we can't predict what will be the ultimate fate of our universe!!!

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is indeed believed to be the red-shifted 'afterglow' from the big bang, as it does have the characteristic shape of thermal radiation, only the red shift is so extreme, that it now lies in the microwave region of the EM spectrum - not where you'd normally expect to find thermal radiation!!

Krusty.

PS This is a bit cerebral for a Friday, don't you think??

[alx098]

Here is a thought - there was a 'big bang', and it created the universe, all of the galaxies, stars and planets. But, how did it all start? I mean there was that extremely compact and dense universe, which then exploded. But what is the origin of that universe? It had to start somewhere, sometime or by someone; but if there was nothing in the first place, then where the hell did it come from? A better question would be where did the energy come from to start the whole thing - from nothing?

Another thing, the Universe has no end. Everything we know has a beginning and an end. Of course except for the energy - it just transforms from one state to another. And if it doesn't end then it doesn't start!?

And another thing, if there are two types of elementary particles: matter and antimatter, which in terms make up the galaxies, then how do they exist? If the two particles encounter each other they explode. Somewhere there have to be a matter and an antimatter galaxies, which are neighbors. How do they exist? Or is there some kind of front where the two collide constantly? I think I've gone cross-eyed, errrrrrrrr.


[This message has been edited by alx098 (edited 05-05-2000).]

[Paul V]

Medo is referencing Stephen Hawking.

Now, if you take into account the entire universe has ZERO net energy in it, you open the possibility of 'vacuum fluctuations'.

This is a real effect due to the fact that even a total vacuum has some uncertainty to its energy, by the Heisenberg principle. This uncertainty in its energy can cause particles to spontaneously form, whose energy is less than the uncertainty of the energy of the vacuum, and whose lifespan is inversely proportional to the energy. We can measure these particles.

So, if the universe has truly zero energy, then the big bang could be caused by this vacuum fluctuation. And as the energy of the system approaches zero, the time it can exist approaches infinity.

[Konan555]

My dress is Yellow

[Konan555]

No seriously,

I heard some physics person babbleing on about 36 dimensions in the universe.

Anyone shed any light?

[blubomber]

Before the big bang i believe that there was a ball or clump of energy/matter. a supper dense one at that.

There are so many unaswered questions about the universe and its origin and there are so many theories out there that one can get a big head ache trying to think about it all. But i can say that it is a very interesting discussion with alot of different point of views.

[medo]

Hello

There is also the cyclic theory - about shrinking and expanding of the universe. Bing Bang started on the very end of one shrinking cycle.
Also there are very interesting theories about the origin of the life. At this moment I am reading a book called "Fifth miracle" -from author Paul Davies. His theory is very interesting.

Medo

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Paul V]

As to extra dimensions -- I had heard 10. Basically some experimental data fits the theoretical data best if the universe has more dimensions.

[krusty the klown]

10 dimensions??

36 dimensions???????

Hehe, I have enough trouble finding out where I am and what time it it http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[akaBruno]

What was there before the Big Bang?

I'll bet it was the biggest Black Hole in the neighborhood.

Bruno

[phoneman5]

WOW, is all I can say,

So I think if we ever do find alien life it will either be really small like 1 inch tall or really big, like maybe were just really small atoms in a very large arena, thats why its so hard to fiqure out,kinda like the outer limits I saw one time many years ago about the dolls in the bucket,when we do find out the truth it will be nothing like what we actually thought all along... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Butchk]

To think anything good came out of an explosion would be like thinking you could set off an explosion under a pile of lumber and build a house. If you want to read a book on what was there before try reading the number one best selling book of all time the Bible. It is in the first chapter of Genesis. After reading and studing it you will know what was there, just one Thing.

[This message has been edited by Butchk (edited 05-10-2000).]

[emcron]

The bible is good and all, but it doesnt really answer anything. Great, there was only one thing but then where or how did that one thing come to be. So we are back to the same question. Where and how did it all begin.

[SysOpt]

Humans are funny things. It's as if we were designed to never stop wondering "WHY" and "HOW". Yet, we were not given the means to understand certain aspects of the way things are, or were. Our minds are simply not capable. We tend to think that we can accomplish anything, and understand everything, but I think there is a limit (we haven't reached it, but it's there). Just as there is a limit to how many calculations a computer can perform, or how much data a hard disk can store.

To understand what came before the big bang might take much more mental power than we posess to even begin to grasp it, unless we dumb it down to a level we CAN understand.

One thing that I find very interesting is the concept of entropy. Most people who have studied physics or chemistry are familiar with the term, but everyone is familiar with the concept. That is, the universe tends towards chaos. In other words, if you solve a jigsaw puzzle, then disassemble it and gather the pieces in your hands and scatter them in front of you, what are the odds that the pieces would land in their proper places to form the completed puzzle? Not likely. Same as what Butchk, said, paraphrasing, "setting off an explosion under a pile of lumber is not going to build a house."

Similarly, if you take a bunch of matter and scatter it out from a central point (i.e. the big bang), what are the chances that along the way, beings would be created with systems as complex as ours? How about all other life as we know it? Not too likely. An entity had to guide the process. Thus, I believe God does/did so, but I do not believe that God plunked man down on the Earth and put everything else out there for our amusement, or that everything was created in "6 days" (or was it 7? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif ).

"Who" is God, who created him, and what was here before him? That's a topic for another thread http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif. But my guess is that we wouldn't understand the answer if it was given to us.


[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 05-10-2000).]

[FrozenLiquidity]

If you want to know more about this sorta thing, go reat "the elegant universe" by Brian Greene. It has all sorts of things that will help you comprehend space/time and the big bang and stuff. I love this book, I have the cover of it as my desktop(spliced with a matrix-like image) if you want this image please contact me.

Will write more later!

FrozenLiquidity

[krusty the klown]

A while after the big bang, when the universe had cooled down a bit - enough for atoms and molecules to exist and gravitational forces to become appreciable in comparison to atomic and thermal forces, pockets of matter started to graviationally collapse on itself.

At this point, the only chemical element was hydrogen (protons and electons). These condensing pockets of matter were quite large (many times larger than our sun) and as the matter condensed, gravitational potential energy was converted into heat. The thing got hot - very hot - hot enough to ignite hydrogen fusion. Once fusion starts, the system equilibrates - gravitational collapse is balanced by the nuclear fusion inside the core of the star.

These stars were extremely massive and such stars consume their fuel very rapidly and don't live very long: there aren't any around today. Massive stars have convective cores, which means the core of the star which is fusing hydrogen to helium is moving around a lot and is well mixed. Because it is well mixed, all of the hydrogen runs out at once and suddenly there is no fusion to balance the gravitational forces and the core collapses.

In this collapse, stable states can be reached where helium fusion (which produces heavier elements) starts. The process continues to the point where further fusion is not energetically favourable (no more energy is released). At this point, the star has an iron core. Gravity kicks in again and the core collapses with a resulting temperature rise. Further fusion starts, but is endothermic (requires energy) and only serves to accelerate the collapse. During this collapse, heavier elements than iron are formed (up to uranium).

Our star had a couple of choices and one of them is to collapse to a neutron star (or pulsar). These are very dense (about the mass of our sun crammed into the volume of Earth!!!) and extremely rigid. The outer collapsing regions of the star hit the rigid neutron ball and bounce off. OK, they explode extremely violently, scattering the heavier elements far and wide.

These heavier elements end up in second generation stars like our sun and the bits of rock and gas orbiting it (us and our neighbouring planets).

We know that stars today contain heavier elements 'cos we can look at their spectra (shine the light through a prism to make a rainbow) and we see discrete gaps in the spectra corresponding to known metal emission lines. Everyone is familiar with sodium street lamps: if you shine the light through a prism, you will split it into discrete colours, rather than a continuous spectrum. Now, if you looked at starlight in this manner and saw dark lines where you had seen bright lines from the street lamp, you would know that the star contained sodium in its outer atmosphere.

Conclusion 1: we are stardust http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Conclusion 2: whilst good rarely comes from explosions on our planet, this does not necessarily hold true for the rest of the universe. The universe does not use explosions for purely destructive purposes.

Hmmmm... this discussion always seems to get cerebral towards the end of the week http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[ScaryBinary]

A true story:

I was dating this girl in high school. She was very religious in her beliefs, and one day we somehow got to talking about the universe. I mentioned something about the Big Bang, and she said, "What a stupid theory! What was there before the Big Bang? What created it?" I replied, "Stupid? Well, what was there before God? What created Him?"

I was promptly dumped.

At any rate, no matter how you look at it, God or no God, it always comes down to the point where you have to wonder if something can come from nothing, or if something can always exist.

We are bound in our little space-time system, so it's darn near impossible to imagine an effect without a cause or even the idea of "nothing." I mean, before the Big Bang (supposedly), it's not like there was this big, empty space - there wasn't even any space to be empty!

Perhaps someday we'll figure all this out - right before the next "Big Crunch," I'm sure.... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/icons/icon12.gif

Scary http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/icons/icon11.gif Binary

[krusty the klown]

there wasn't even any space to be empty!

Exactamundo http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Underclocked]

You would all be better served trying to use your minds to figure out how to pay bills.

I'm sure there are NO questions that can't be answered EVENTUALLY, but I'm still praying to my television. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[krusty the klown]

The Universe is more interesting than bills..... (IMO)

But if I could pay my bills without parting with any cash, I'd be interested http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[ScaryBinary]

I have a quantum bank account. Until I actually check it, my account is in a fuzzy state where I am both rich and poor. But then when I observe my account, I collapse its wave function, and I'm poor.

There's always that slim chance that I'll look and I'll be rich, though! That's what keeps me going.

ScaryBinary

[emcron]

LOL binary
I dont know if anybody else though so or maybe because I havent slep in a couple of days but the post above is hilarious.

[ceedee]

Although it is interesting to ponder what was before the big bang
it is also pointless
as we can only prove / disprove things thatwe can observe directly or observe indirectly by their effects nothing previous to the big bang can ever be observed.
anyones theory is as good as anyone elsesin this case
better to ponder things we can actually prove rather than flights of fancy.....

[krusty the klown]

Hehe, it's not exactly easy to prove / disprove things we can observe directly, 'cos quantum theory tells us that making the observation affects the experiment you're observing http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Certainly pondering what was there before the big bang is abstract, to say the least. But we can make a lot of inferences as to what happened after 'it' from what we see in the sky today.

[Missing the point]

Our Solar system is just a tine dot on one of the outer arms of a spiral tpe galaxy, and our galaxy is over 100 light years across, and there are millions of galaxies in the universe. one or another has to have some form of life on it.


I believe in the occilating theory, where there was a big bang, then everything flies out, and slows down, and eventually halts, and then start coming back in, and crashes together, and it all starts over again. It seems right to me......

[krusty the klown]

Exactly, the notion that our planet is the only one with life on is more absurd than the notion that there is other live in the Universe, by sheer virtue of the size of the Universe and the number of stars in it.

At the moment, we cannot tell whether whether the Universe will carry on expanding, or start to contract again. Our current estim8 of the Hubble constant has sufficiently large errors to put the actual value in either the 'expanding forever' or the 'expand and contract' region.

[chuckiechan]

There was infinite energy combined with infinite time, with a net mass of infinite smallness. When they split (I.E.Bang!) energy and time became unstable. Thus time was able to move in the form of light and energy was able to move between higher and lower potentials.

I know this is true, because the more time I go through the less energy potential I have...!!

[krusty the klown]

Hehehe.... happens to the best of us http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

[hd581]

Our current estim8 of the Hubble constant has sufficiently large errors to put the actual value in either the 'expanding forever' or the 'expand and contract' region.So what you're saying is that eventually the Universe will either contract or it won't.

Forgive me for saying this, but:

Duh.

[falcompsx]

In the beginning there was software and hardware, and it was good. Then Bill said let there be DOS, and it was good. The second day Bill said let there be Windows and it sucked, but Bill thought it was good. The third day Bill said let there be Windows 3.1 and it was better, but still sucked, and even still Bill thought it was good, and Bill was getting very rich. The forth day Bill said let there be Windows NT 3.51 and it was good, and Bill said it was good. the fifth day Bill said let ther be windows 95 and it was decent but still crashed, and Bill thought it was good because he was still rich. The sixth day bill said Let there be Windows 98 and it crashed immidiately. The seventh day Bill rested... The eighth day bill said let there be Windows 2000 and it was late, because Bill had so much money he didn't care. This is why I don't think pirating software is a bad thing(it also doesn't mean that I do it)

[This message has been edited by falcompsx (edited 05-25-2000).]

[falcompsx]

on a more serious note, where is our universe actually located? is it in some sort of universe neighborhood? or is it's existance just an infinite space? who or what created the space? was it always there? and before the *big bang* was the space just empty? I don't know, but I think matrix is a very possible option...this is all a computer simulation, it's possible and can't be proven right or wrong really. anyway, I never knew there were so many theories out there that people had. I dont know if it's really related to this topic, but it is interesting...me and a friend both agree that gravity could very well be another dimension. does anyone else have and idea what other dimensions are out there? we all know of the first 4, with time being the forth, for argument's sake, let's say gravity is 5th, but what could be 6th, 7th and 8th? any ideas?

[krusty the klown]

hd581:

Our current estim8 of the Hubble constant has sufficiently large errors to put the actual value in either the 'expanding forever' or the 'expand and contract' region.

Which means exactly that: we cannot tell at the moment whether the Universe will expand forever, expand and stop at an equilibrium point, or stop then start contracting. We cannot tell this, because the error in our estimate is sufficiently large to place the Universe in either of these three situations.

It won't change my life if nobody forgives me for saying this, but Duh!

[hd581]

LOL Krusty, thanks for clearing that up. It just sounded funny the way you said it originally. Couldn't resist. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[ScaryBinary]

I think the only thing that was there before the Big Bang was Dick Clark. Carbon dating places him around that time.

ScaryBinary

[chipbgt]

When you take hold of the idea that God created the whole universe it is not such an absurd or "arrogant" idea that we were the only ones he created. I like to think that it shows how small and unique we all are in comparison to the power of the universe, which in turn does not even register on the scale of the power of the creating force (God) of the universe. None of us will be able to understand it for sure on earth. Think about it, most of us cant even honestly fathom the size of the country we live in, let alone the earth, let alone our solar system, galaxy, etc etc...but i wont deny its not fun to try to understand http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[voogru]

ok heres something that will make everything simple.

the entire universe is no more than 30,000 years old.

and there was no BIG BANG http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
and the earth is not 333,754,765,223,432,432
years old and a great flood killed all the dino's execpt water type dinos, http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
if a metor did hit whers the crater? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
and a metor would have killed everything we would not be here there would be 2 years of darkness wich means no light for plants no food for animals and no food for us and we would have all died of no food and cold.
So you still say a metor hit? Tell me where the crator is and prove me WRONG otherwise **DELETED** http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

voogru, this is a DISCUSSION to explore ideas and theories. If you can't participate in a civil and intelligent manner, then don't participate. -socalgal

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 05-28-2000).]

[Meat Puppet]

In theory it is quite possible the universe came from absolutely nothing depending on you perspective of the universe.

Okay picture this you have an void in one hand a vaccumm if you will on the other you have a vast collapsing universe.

Of course as you would imagine the force of a universe caving on itself is beyond any thing comprehendible by myself or anyone else.

Theres no math availiable to calculate the forces that this would create so this is simply theory and nothing more.

The energies created by the collapsing universe would be so intense as to open rifts in space time and between various dimensions.

As with any other force of nature "taking the path of least resistance" Instead of collapsing into nothing. It would rip Dimensions with incredible force into the next empty universe creating a big bang.

Leaving the colapsed universe as an empty void a newly recycled "nothing so to speak" and leaving a new void for the next collapsing universe to fill and so on.

Can I prove anything I just said "H%$$ No" http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif. I leave that to the future to disprove or prove anything I say here today.

Lol Hash that http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif.

[ILC]

I dont know if this has been covered becuase I have to admit I got sick of reading all the replies http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Anywho those couple people who have brought up about God creating the earth have been cut down by people saying well where did God come from? Well like its been mentioned how did something come from nothing in the big bang theory?? It always comes down to the word Where? The thing is if you believe in the bible, and the story of creation (which I do) then you believe God has always been around and always will be around. Its just one of those things like Sysopt said where humans will never be able to understand it or reason it, we just cant. However with the big bang theory one must believe that something came from nothing, and last I checked science has NEVER ever had something come from absolutely nothing. And for those of you who say there was something there then let me ask you...where did that something come from??

ILC

[ScaryBinary]

Throughout history, one thing has never changed: we've always been wrong about defining the world around us. We used to think the world was at the center of everything. Wrong. Then we thought our planet was flat. Wrong. Then we though Newtonian Mechanics could explain all motion. Wrong.

But the good thing about being wrong all the time is that it points us in the right direction. Now we've got several new theories the match very well with direct and indirect observations (Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang, etc.). These are THEORIES. The point of having a theory is to try and prove it wrong. If we can, we move on and scrap the theory or adjust it so it works again. If we can't, it stays a theory, and it is used because even though we know it may not be completely correct, it works well. Newton's laws work great for cars and baseballs, but not to great for electrons. We know these limitations and act accordingly.

So, years down the road, we might look back at the Big Bang Theory and laugh and think "Man, what the hell were we on when we thought that one up?" just as we look back now and wonder how anyone could think the world is flat. Or, it could still reflect our observations and we'll use it.

At any rate, I've forgotten what my point really was, but I'll add another lenghty dissertation when I remember! Mark my words!

ScaryBinary

[This message has been edited by ScaryBinary (edited 05-29-2000).]

[hd581]

However with the big bang theory one must believe that something came from nothing, and last I checked science has NEVER ever had something come from absolutely nothing.Check again. Protons and Anti-protons are being created spontaneously even as we speak. We used to think the world was at the center of everything. Wrong.That was religious leaders becoming too zealous. Arrogance led us wrong. Then we thought our planet was flat. Wrong.That conclusion was drawn from lack of data. Ignorance led us wrong. Then we [thought] Newtonian Mechanics could explain all motion. Wrong.True, but not entirely wrong. In fact, it's mostly right. Quantum mechanics plays a very small role in our lives today.

The Big Bang theory is different from all of these examples. There isn't any non-scientific issue warping it (unlike the 1st example you mentioned). We may be ignorant about some actual details of it, but there is evidence in the form of equations and physics (unlike the 2nd example). Finally, it may not be entirely right but it's probably close (like the 3rd example).

[This message has been edited by hd581 (edited 05-29-2000).]

[ILC]

Im gonna stay out of this one becuase im just gonna get me buried even deeper but I thought protons, and anti protons were just speculations also, and weve never really have proved them. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Who konws though.

[krusty the klown]

A proton is just a hydrogen atom with its electron ripped off. They are quite easy to create from hydrogen gas, which is also quite easy to create - you pass electricity through water.

Anti protons aren't too common in this neck of the woods, nor is any antimatter, 'cos if it encounters matter, they mutually annihiliate and their mass is converted into energy (E=MC^2). The reverse process can create matter-antimatter pairs. A Photon (electromagnetic wave, like light, just a lot more energy) can create matter-antimatter pairs when it collides with another sub-atomic particle. At the energy required to do this, EM radiation (photons) behave more like particles than like waves.

Antimatter can actually be created in your brain. Not as a result of over-indulgence: despite how bad the hangover may feel http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

If you have a PET scan (stands for positron emission tomography and it is used as a medical imaging technique), positrons (the electron's antimatter cousin) are emitted by a substance that will have been injected earlier. The positron doesn't get far before encountering an electron. When they collide, they annihilate and two photons travel off in opposite directions. By timing the arrival of the photons, we can back-track and estimate the original location of the collision. With lots of collisions, lots of detectors and a decent computer, we can build up an image of brain function.

Incidentally, anyone seen the normal - vs - abuser brain images of habitual cocaine abusers showing a really dim image in the cocaine abuser's brains???? That's a PET scan.

[tantone]

They always say to be careful when it comes to discussing politics or religion (and Sammy Kershaw doesn't want to discuss "her" either). Talking about topics like this are going to spark religious comments.

I found an earlier post by ScaryBinary pretty interesting. I've noticed something that seems to be a pattern. In a discussion such as this one, if you disagree with or question someone on the side of science, you get a well thought out response from what seems to be a very open-minded person; someone who's willing to hear all sides and make no statements of fact, just theory.

When you disagree with someone on the side of religion, you receive a fiery and passionate response, usually full of accusatory language; usually quite rude, insulting, and mean-spirited.

If I recall correctly, countless wars in history, an unfathomable number of protests, and a few killings of doctors who perform abortions have all come about because of those who say they believe so strongly in the bible and God that those who's opinions/lifestyles differ should agree or die.

If that's the effect that believing in God is supposed to have on you, then I'm close to denouncing the whole damned thing.

I strongly believe that the two schools can cohabitate. It's unfortunate that statements such as "prove me wrong" have to find their way into discussions like this. Religion and science are based equally on theory, no one more so than the other. As a theory stands and has not been contested for some time, it becomes law. Once something can be proven however, it becomes fact. Science has been able to provide facts over time, whereas religion has only provided the Bible as their fact. I guess that makes sense.

To try and prove or disprove anything, one would have to question, and according to religion, to question the existence of God is wrong. Science is all about questions, it's based on questions, although some of those questions have answers that we may never know. But the search for them is fascinating.

I also disagree with Sysopt. On average we each use 10% of our brains. Now I agree that we couldn't possibly comprehend the answers to this discussion with that 10%. But the human mind, in my opinion, is capable of things that we haven't even dreamed of. In the end, who's to say?

[This message has been edited by tantone (edited 05-31-2000).]

[GregM]

Fun reading, sorta, with all the science vs. religion and every other crackpot theory.
Did anyone see Contact? The final point (a bit different from the book, but then Sagan was dying) was you have to believe in something. De Cartes, in a logical discourse he created under a commission to logically prove the existence of God, concluded he was the only thing he could truly believe in, since everything else could be an illusion. He then proceeded, through a string of logic so bad Socrates would cringe, to prove God existed.

As I see it, religion (usually) tries to wrap up everything not understood into a single entity, like god, to explain it all. Explaining anything new, therefor, can be a threat to the order it defined. Science tries to start with the minimum of assumptions and use a few tried tools, such as logic and math, to explain everything beyond those assumptions. But in face of evidence, even the most cherished assumptions can be challenged in science, but not in a dogma like religion.

Oddly enough, quantum physics sometimes hints of something you could call god, I think. One topic of advanced mathematics and physics (far advanced to me, anyway) is super symmetry. It suggest that a perfect universe would not exist and therefor our knowable universe is due to fractured symmetry. So what existed before the universe could have been perfection, with no time, no space, no matter/energy. The universe had to be created from a fracture in symmetry, so we are living in one big imperfection (I kind of like that idea).

That can be paralleled to the good/evil god/satan concept, if you except the universe only exist because something went awry in heaven. Both leave the same question, how could something imperfect come out of something perfect (how could something come from nothing?). We seem capable of accepting the opposite, though, perfection can arise from the imperfect or something can vanish into oblivion. That is not exceptable in religion because it would imply god could be created by satan but not visa versa. Perhaps the something from nothing is just as possible, just harder for us to comprehend.

So far, I have presented no original thought. I can only come to the conclusion that the universe does not exist (see the 1=1? forum). That seems to eliminate all paradoxes. Take that René. I don't exist, so I don't think.

I am always interested, and dumbfounded by the answers I get to this question I like to ask both of theist and atheist (O.K., and agnostics): Do you believe the universe is completely deterministic, like Isaac Newton, that is every action is governed by laws, or do you believe true randomness exist, that is some events only have probabilistic limits but no definable mechanism (cosmic uncertainty).
What to you say people - is there randomness or not, and do you believe in a god?

Apologies if my babble didn't leave room on the server for responses.

[GregM]

Fun reading, sorta, with all the science vs. religion and every other crackpot theory.
Did anyone see Contact? The final point (a bit different from the book, but then Sagan was dying) was you have to believe in something. De Cartes, in a logical discourse he created under a commission to logically prove the existence of God, concluded he was the only thing he could truly believe in, since everything else could be an illusion. He then proceeded, through a string of logic so bad Socrates would cringe, to prove God existed.

As I see it, religion (usually) tries to wrap up everything not understood into a single entity, like god, to explain it all. Explaining anything new, therefor, can be a threat to the order it defined. Science tries to start with the minimum of assumptions and use a few tried tools, such as logic and math, to explain everything beyond those assumptions. But in face of evidence, even the most cherished assumptions can be challenged in science, but not in a dogma like religion.

Oddly enough, quantum physics sometimes hints of something you could call god, I think. One topic of advanced mathematics and physics (far advanced to me, anyway) is super symmetry. It suggest that a perfect universe would not exist and therefor our knowable universe is due to fractured symmetry. So what existed before the universe could have been perfection, with no time, no space, no matter/energy. The universe had to be created from a fracture in symmetry, so we are living in one big imperfection (I kind of like that idea).

That can be paralleled to the good/evil god/satan concept, if you except the universe only exist because something went awry in heaven. Both leave the same question, how could something imperfect come out of something perfect (how could something come from nothing?). We seem capable of accepting the opposite, though, perfection can arise from the imperfect or something can vanish into oblivion. That is not exceptable in religion because it would imply god could be created by satan but not visa versa. Perhaps the something from nothing is just as possible, just harder for us to comprehend.

So far, I have presented no original thought. I can only come to the conclusion that the universe does not exist (see the 1=1? forum). That seems to eliminate all paradoxes. Take that René. I don't exist, so I don't think.

I am always interested, and dumbfounded by the answers I get to this question I like to ask both of theist and atheist (O.K., and agnostics): Do you believe the universe is completely deterministic, like Isaac Newton, that is every action is governed by laws, or do you believe true randomness exist, that is some events only have probabilistic limits but no definable mechanism (cosmic uncertainty).
What to you say people - is there randomness or not, and do you believe in a god?

Apologies if my babble didn't leave room on the server for responses. But then maybe there really isn't a server.

[Brastius]

If I could add my part in here somewhere, I'd like to stir the pot a bit. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

I'd like to start logically, and take a sharp Left down Illogical Alley:

I once read an article that stated that a pinhole universe could, in theory, be created by extreme gravitic/magnetic forces and that, upon creation, would make it's own worm hole and dissapear from our Universe.

Let's leave that there for now. Recently, a team of scientists sent up a balloon in the Antarctic to measure the curvature of the Universe. It was revealed to be perfectly flat. Here's the article if you want it http://www.sciencenews.org/20000429/fob1.asp

as well as another one http://www.sciencenews.org/20000212/bob1.asp

In the second one, its offered that, contrary to popular theory, the universe isn't slowing in its expansion. It's actually Increasing. What this means that, if there isn't any other medium out there beyond the Universe, things will continue to stretch outwards until nothing is corporeal. Now there's a thought to twist your mind around... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif
Now, let's try and tye these two together. Imagine a pool of water, then drop a pebble into the water and observe the waves they create. They, as well, stretch outwards until they strike a foreign object and then bounce back in the general direction of the source. This might hold true for a universe where everything was uncomplicated, however, ours is DEFinately a complicated Universe and there are multitudes of varibles created Within that would act as a counter-resonance. With the Universe expanding at an Accelerated Rate, this might set up a "bounce pattern" that would create its' own pinhole universes (ala the pebble in the pool theory http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif) that would be the Big Bang of their own.
What started all this in the first place? Perhaps there was no start, as there will be no end. It's a difficult concept to grasp, as we are taught from an early age that things start and stop but Never last forever. This could be the only existence of perpetual motion, and could only be coused on a scale that is incomprehensible with our physically limited minds.
Excuse the seemingly Psycho-babble. I know what I want to say, just not HOW...;p

-Brastius

"I believe in Peace and bashing two bricks together." Archbishop Gumby (Michael Palin), Monty Python

[ScaryBinary]

I don't think anything is random. I think "random" (and perhaps "god") is a term we use to describe something we haven't quite figured out yet.

I do believe that everything in this universe is somehow affected by everything else in the universe. Perhaps thousands of people praying for rain can somehow make it rain, through yet unknown interactions, but i don't believe in the existance of a Rain God whose only purpose is to look down at us and make rain for us when we honor him.

In a similar fashion, I suppose I don't really believe in an ultimate, single God - a God in the sense of some being who is outside everything yet has the ultimate power to bend everything to his will, or a god that will send me to Hell simply because I don't praise him and thank him every waking moment. I believe in a god in the sense that we are all connected, and that we as entities in the universe have the power to pool our resources and conquer the unknown. I think, in a nutshell, that pure energy is god. It runs through us and keeps us alive, yet we can also harness it to our advantage (or disadvantage...).

Um....I guess that's it! I went an entire post with out even mentioning Black Holes. Oops, I just mentioned them.

ScaryBinary

PS: Spellcheck crashes my system, but I've proofread to the best of my ability!

[GregM]

I had trouble with the spell check, too. I blame that for my nasty double post. From now own my post will contain my native frightful spelling and incomprehensable grammatical errors.

Given the truth of my cosmilogical theory of non-existance, there really is nothing. Therefor, nothing is unknown. Ergo, everything is known. In non-existance, everything is nothing, which I said, is unknown. So the known is unkown. Only non-existance is without paradox and must be the conclusion, QED.

Your friend,
Don Quixote

[Meat Puppet]

Non exsistance is not a constant. for non existance has to be comprehended to exist. Therefore something has to Exist to comprehend it.

Your bringing up non-existance on this board caused it to no longer exist as a constant.

And if we didnt exist it wouldnt be refered to as non existance it would be refered to as " ". http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[KillerBug]

Ok, I did not yet read anything except the first reply, here is my theory...

I believe that there are 2 universes, just as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, each point of space which contains no matter mutualy must corospond to a point with infinite matter. Therefor, there must be 2 universes, ours, in which the prominent form is the lack of, and another in which the prominent form is the matter. Now, in places of extreme gravity, speed, or heat a tunnel through time or space, or a "Worm Hole" can be formed for an almost infinetly short period of time. Normaly, nothing can be put through this extremely small and swiftly closing hole, but if the pressure was extreme enough, to the point where the matter was not almost infinetly compact, but infact because infinetly compact, and one of these holes opened around it, it would burst into the hole releasing huge amounts of matter, almost unmeasurable by any standard, and in the form of a portion of an atom. if it made it through thw hole, it would burst instantly due to the lack of presure upon it, as for the atom to have become infinitely compact, it would have to be at or very near to the core itself of the "matter" universe, and even at the levels of compression and gravity it would be exposed to only a short distance away from its lacation in the "Matter" universe, it would infact explode and instanly implode upon itself forming as slightly less compact atom. Anyway, once exposed to a complete lack of preasure, it would explode in such a blast that it would take billions of billions of billions of years before it bagan to slow due to the minute levels of gravity that it exposed itself to, and began to come towards ne central point again (by gravity, I mean like the kind of gravity that the next galaxy over is pulling on a hunk of dirt that is about to hit the sun, slowing its acceleration to the sun in an almost unmeasurably small amount, while the sun with a larger, but still almost infinetly small abount acceleratest towards the galaxy, making the dirt hit it earlier. And although the hunk of dirt got pulled into the nuclear reaction of the sun, the sun was also pulled towards the dirt, again by an almost unmeasurable amount. So at some point, the universe will pull itself back down to a tiny core with almost unlimited gravity, it would seem this would be the end of the universe, but the action that cause the atom to get here in the first place could happen again, so it most likely would not be. Somewhere after that atom burst and it became a single atom again, that is where we are now.the gravity has yet to begin to pull the universe back together, as the universe it still getting larger. Over Trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of......years, both universes will become equal due to these atoms transporting, far to compressed for any form of life as we could imagine it, but life could still go on. In the end, just thinking about it creates a huge story, a complex diagram to point out increadably vauge features, and a headache, so forget about it and have fun now.