Page 1 of 2

what happened before the big bang?

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:59 pm
by seremtan
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?

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:00 pm
by Mr.Magnetichead
What was before? Another entire universe that existed before it fell back into itself.

The universe is on a rubber band.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:07 pm
by Transient
The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:13 pm
by Guest
You don't want to hear what I have to say. :smirk:

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:14 pm
by sys0p
Before the big bang, there was space, just like there is now. It just didn't have anything in it.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:15 pm
by Canidae
Before the big bang was the big come on line

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:28 pm
by 4days
the big splat

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:37 pm
by seremtan
Transient wrote:The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.
what's the tortoise standing on?

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:39 pm
by tnf
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.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:42 pm
by Cooldown
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.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:50 pm
by menkent
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.
ffs, potser. do you speak english?

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:53 pm
by shiznit
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.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:08 pm
by shiznit
Here is another idea which I realized.

In order for something to exist something else needs to know the properties of that something, otherwise there would be nothing.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:31 pm
by saturn
sys0p wrote:Before the big bang, there was space, just like there is now. It just didn't have anything in it.
heh, so there was nothing

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:31 pm
by hate
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.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:32 pm
by hate
you dumb fucks

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:33 pm
by saturn
yeah, nice copy paste, indian

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:35 pm
by hate
no shit

smart jap

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:44 pm
by Hannibal
shiznit wrote:Here is another idea which I realized.

In order for something to exist something else needs to know the properties of that something, otherwise there would be nothing.
Are you sure? Did Pluto magically wink into existence in 1930?

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:51 pm
by R00k
lol, I just spit a little bit of my drink out.

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:23 am
by simple
well there to be a before, dosen't there have to be an after, and a now? and isn't that just our human perspectives on time, and isn't time just an illution created by the converstions of the sates of energy.

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:26 am
by Pext
Hannibal wrote:
shiznit wrote:Here is another idea which I realized.

In order for something to exist something else needs to know the properties of that something, otherwise there would be nothing.
Are you sure? Did Pluto magically wink into existence in 1930?
yes.

now: prove the opposite, lol.

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:40 am
by ScooterG
Thinking about all of this puts me in one of those existentialist bullshit moods. I hope there is meaning somewhere to all of this....

Great. Now I'm wallowing around like a Russian novelist. Thanks. :icon26:

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:43 am
by Transient
seremtan wrote:
Transient wrote:The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.
what's the tortoise standing on?
You're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's turtles all the way down!

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:10 am
by menkent
can this get moved to R&R so i can flame people? -->