The Big Bang AKA Where The **** Did It All Start?

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 05-20-2011, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I can't remember reading about anything that I thought made the Big Bang seem very unfeasible

It's not unfeasible, at all. There's a good reason it's the dominant theory. Regardless, I think it's far outside of humanities scope of provability or unprovability.

Guybrush · 05-20-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

It's not unfeasible, at all. There's a good reason it's the dominant theory. Regardless, I think it's far outside of humanities scope of provability or unprovability.

There's certainly more we can learn, for example in quantum physics about how really small particles of matter behave under different circumstances. Because the universe was so small at the very start of time, knowledge about really small things might make the big bang hypothesis more or less feasible.

Sneer · 07-31-2011, 09:16 PM

I find the question of 'where did it all begin?' terrifying. I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of 'nothingness', but surely, at some point, that's all there must have been, right?

Uh, thinking about it is like staring into oblivion.

Freebase Dali · 07-31-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I find the question of 'where did it all begin?' terrifying. I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of 'nothingness', but surely, at some point, that's all there must have been, right?

Uh, thinking about it is like staring into oblivion.

There's no such thing as nothing. That's why.

RVCA · 07-31-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I find the question of 'where did it all begin?' terrifying. I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of 'nothingness', but surely, at some point, that's all there must have been, right?

Uh, thinking about it is like staring into oblivion.

No. It doesn't make sense to think of a time of "nothingness" before the Big Bang. Speaking in the most generic sense, the phrase "Big Bang" has two different meanings. On the one hand, it means that thing that happened fourteen billion years ago. On the other, it means event one, the start of all things.

It makes no sense, obviously, to talk about the event that came before event one. If there was an event before the one we currently believe to have been the first one, then that would be the first one. There is no before when you're talking about that-which-preceded-all.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that there were events that occurred before that-thing-fourteen-billion-years-ago. It's just that we have no evidence of them. We have no reason to believe that they exist. Everything we've ever seen adds up to the conclusion that the thing that happened fourteen billion years ago was event one. Is it necessarily true that that's the case? No. But it's not reasonable to believe otherwise unless and until some kind of evidence to that effect makes itself known.

Guybrush · 08-01-2011, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

On the other, it means event one, the start of all things.

It makes no sense, obviously, to talk about the event that came before event one. If there was an event before the one we currently believe to have been the first one, then that would be the first one. There is no before when you're talking about that-which-preceded-all.

I don't fully agree here. According to the The Big Bang theory, our universe started with a "big bang" (or rapid expansion rather), but predicting what happened before that when you have all the matter of the universe in one place is not really simple. We don't know how the laws of physics would behave in such a place and explaining how they did may be outside the scope of physics. Who can really say that something like a big crunch didn't happen first that put all the universe's matter in that one place?

Perhaps there are many good arguments physicists could raise, but as far as I know, a big crunch preceding a big bang is still a valid hypothesis.

RVCA · 08-02-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I don't fully agree here. According to the The Big Bang theory, our universe started with a "big bang" (or rapid expansion rather), but predicting what happened before that when you have all the matter of the universe in one place is not really simple. We don't know how the laws of physics would behave in such a place and explaining how they did may be outside the scope of physics. Who can really say that something like a big crunch didn't happen first that put all the universe's matter in that one place?

Perhaps there are many good arguments physicists could raise, but as far as I know, a big crunch preceding a big bang is still a valid hypothesis.

You're correct, but even if the universe is in an endless series of big-bang-big-crunches, they still had to start with something. There will still be an "event number one" which, by definition, could not have been preceded by anything at all.

RVCA · 08-03-2011, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I don't necessarily believe that our universe is infinite, but how can you say it isn't?

Well see, now I believe you're ignoring the second part of my initial post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that there were events that occurred before that-thing-fourteen-billion-years-ago. It's just that we have no evidence of them. We have no reason to believe that they exist. Everything we've ever seen adds up to the conclusion that the thing that happened fourteen billion years ago was event one. Is it necessarily true that that's the case? No. But it's not reasonable to believe otherwise unless and until some kind of evidence to that effect makes itself known.

In that vein, sure, we could assume that the universe is infinite. But that necessarily defeats what got this discussion started in the first place: something infinite cannot have a period of nothingness like Stu was pondering aloud about

skaltezon · 08-01-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

With the energy being constant, and the speed of light being constant, the following is how I see it going down:

e = m * (c^2) (where e=energy, m=mass, c=speed of light), therefor:
m = e / (c^2)
With the energy of the universe being virtually infinite, we get:
m = infinity / (c^2) = infinity
Therefor, the mass of the universe is infinite.
d = (m / v) (where d=density, m=mass, v=volume)
The volume of the multiverse is finite, it has an exact and unchanging volume.
With mass being infinite, we get:
m = (d * v) = infinity
Since (d * v) is infinite, and v is finite, then that makes d infinite.

In summation:
Mass is infinite and constant.
Volume is finite, but not constant.
Density is infinite, but not constant.
Energy is infinite and constant.

It's just a constant cycle that has always been, and always will be. This is a hard theory to wrap your head around, but no harder than religion or "God." I doubt that this will do much to prove or even get us any closer to getting the answer that we are looking for, as I'm probably just talking out of my ass, but that's my shot at it.

It can never end, thus, it never began. It just "is." Makes no sense, but just as much sense as everything else.

Very entertaining. But your 'virtually-infinite' energy isn't the same as 'infinite' energy. 'Virtually-infinite' suggests something finite and theoretically measurable. But we aren't capable of measuring anything that's infinite, even theoretically. Therefore we can't talk about an infinite quantity in any meaningful way. Also, you converted 'virtually-infinite' energy to 'infinite' mass, which is inconsistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i actually do have a working knowledge of the theory behind all this (or did have)

i think the quantum mechanical theory of things just appearing out of nowhere feasible for me (I can't exactly remember the quantum physical mechanics behind this)

Virtual particles being created in a strong gravitational field? It's how Hawking gets his black holes to evaporate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That isn't a fact, as you call it. Our relationship with the universe is from an extremely remote perspective, from the bottom of a gravity well on a speck of dust. At present there's no way of determining whether the universe is 'self-dictating' or has a 'motive'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

I think the mystical crap is a place holder for what we don't yet understand.

I agree, except that to call it crap suggests it isn't worth understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman

So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.

Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I find the question of 'where did it all begin?' terrifying. I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of 'nothingness', but surely, at some point, that's all there must have been, right?

Uh, thinking about it is like staring into oblivion.

Maybe the concepts of 'time' and 'cause-and-effect' are just artifacts of the human brain that used to help our understanding but now are hindering it. All the rules we've invented to describe what we see may be dependent on our biology.

.

.

07-31-2011, 09:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sneer Let it drip Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,397	I find the question of 'where did it all begin?' terrifying. I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of 'nothingness', but surely, at some point, that's all there must have been, right? Uh, thinking about it is like staring into oblivion. __________________ LastFM Sneer's Emporium of Sound Fright Team radio show