ok, this is intended to be sort of like one of kracus's science discussion threads, only without bong-toking bollocks.
i was one of those people who started reading hawking's brief history of time but gave up partway thru when i realised i hadn't a clue what he was on about (light cones? wtf?). does anyone know anything about these various theories of other universes, and baby universes, and this idea that universes are 'selected for' (in evolutionary terms) by lasting long enough to 'reproduce' (i.e. create black holes which create new universes)?
the most mind-bending thing for me is that anything exists at all (sartre: "why is there something and not nothing?") and what that means, if anything (wittgenstein: "it is not how the world exists that is mystical, it is that it exists at all").
thoughts? specifically, thoughts not transmitted through a sensimilla haze?
what happened before the big bang?
-
Mr.Magnetichead
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:00 am
-
sys0p
The theory of the big bang would state that space itself was created during the explosion. it was not an explosion into pre-existing empty space. The universe, and the fabric of spacetime, is expanding, much like a loaf of break when it rises - this is evidenced by the redshifts of distant galaxy clusters - wavelength expands as the medium it is moving through (the fabric of spacetime) expands as well.
As for what was before - we can't really answer that, scientifically. There is the popular big bang/big crunch idea - a simple explanation would be that there are repeated big bangs and crunches. Recent scientific data have shown that the rate of the expansion is increasing, however, so this throws a bit of a curveball into the crunch idea. But there is still much work to be done in trying to figure out exactly what the fate of the universe might be.
As for what was before - we can't really answer that, scientifically. There is the popular big bang/big crunch idea - a simple explanation would be that there are repeated big bangs and crunches. Recent scientific data have shown that the rate of the expansion is increasing, however, so this throws a bit of a curveball into the crunch idea. But there is still much work to be done in trying to figure out exactly what the fate of the universe might be.
I will say as a main premise that there has been and never will be exactly nothing. That absolute nothing has and never will exist in entirety. That is in the whole plane in which the universe exists there is, was, and always will be something. With this stated premise the ultimate building blocks exist not in contradiction.
This whole argument may seem to be glazing over or ignoring other scientific theories of meta-physics regarding nothings existence before the big bang or even previous to that 'before,' but I will say that that perceived nothing was only perceived as nothing by not perceiving something in an unperceived form. That is nothing was thought to be, when in actuality there was 'something' but it was either too minute, or too large, or invisible to detect to certain detectors.
Thus this is an infinite regress situation in where there was always something, never nothing.
This whole argument may seem to be glazing over or ignoring other scientific theories of meta-physics regarding nothings existence before the big bang or even previous to that 'before,' but I will say that that perceived nothing was only perceived as nothing by not perceiving something in an unperceived form. That is nothing was thought to be, when in actuality there was 'something' but it was either too minute, or too large, or invisible to detect to certain detectors.
Thus this is an infinite regress situation in where there was always something, never nothing.
ffs, potser. do you speak english?Cooldown wrote:I will say as a main premise that there has been and never will be exactly nothing. That absolute nothing has and never will exist in entirety. That is in the whole plane in which the universe exists there is, was, and always will be something. With this stated premise the ultimate building blocks exist not in contradiction.
This whole argument may seem to be glazing over or ignoring other scientific theories of meta-physics regarding nothings existence before the big bang or even previous to that 'before,' but I will say that that perceived nothing was only perceived as nothing by not perceiving something in an unperceived form. That is nothing was thought to be, when in actuality there was 'something' but it was either too minute, or too large, or invisible to detect to certain detectors.
Thus this is an infinite regress situation in where there was always something, never nothing.
I’m not exactly sure science will be able to tell us why everything is here.
I mean if there was nothing then how did something come out of it? There had to be something in order to create everything, and if there was something then why was it here and how it did come about. Is there a reason for anything at all? If there is no reason why everything exists then it means the only thing that matters is the individual’s experience.
I mean if there was nothing then how did something come out of it? There had to be something in order to create everything, and if there was something then why was it here and how it did come about. Is there a reason for anything at all? If there is no reason why everything exists then it means the only thing that matters is the individual’s experience.
The modification differs from the standard theory in that the universe starts with two seperate space-times. One is a 2D manifold that meets the requirement for a Near-Kerr solution to Blackhole Geometrodynamics in 2D format. The other is a 6D Higgs type space-time of a size greater than 10^50th power in light years. The first starts smaller than the Plank scale by an equal amount.