Before the Big Bang Now Possible?

[CommonMan]

Some people have asked "Before the Big Bang Question" but was told it was not possible. Or is it?
Glimpse before Big Bang may be possible

Before the Big Bang?
The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an aftereffect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.
"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28638720/

 

[DrRocket]

Some people have asked "Before the Big Bang Question" but was told it was not possible. Or is it?
Glimpse before Big Bang may be possible

Before the Big Bang?
The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an aftereffect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.
"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28638720/

If you ask about "before the big bang" in terms of the models based on general relativity that predict the big bang then you are talking nonsense. Those models predict a singularity, and "before" is meaningless.

But singularities are statements that the theory has broken down. There are other models that predict a very compact beginning, but one without singularities and that are indistinguishable from general relativity under all conditions that can be addressed experimentally with current technology -- see Einstein-Cartan theory.

It also appears to be true that any valid description of the very earliest times in the universe will require a theory that unifies both general relativity and quantum theory, and no such theory currently exists.

So maybe one can eventually speak sensibly of "before the big bang". Bu this article does not suggest any such unifying theory. Rather it speaks of the possibility of yet another scalar field in addition to the field that is allegedly responsible for inflation. This strikes me as extremely speculative and yet another example of the press looking for a sensational story. There is still no good candidate for or explanation for an inflationary scalar field, and this new idea requires two scalar fields. To me this seems more of a "curve fit" approach than fundamental physics. It is not even clear if the raw data is valid, let alone whether or not a new curve fit describes that data. I am definitely skeptical and in the "wait and see" camp.

"Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk". -- John Von Neumann as related to Freeman Dyson quoted by Enrico Fermi

 

[DrRocket]

Some people have asked "Before the Big Bang Question" but was told it was not possible. Or is it?
Glimpse before Big Bang may be possible

Before the Big Bang?
The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an aftereffect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.
"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28638720/

I occurs to me that if this data holds up then the fundamental assumption that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on the largest scales goes down the tube. That is the cosmological principle and if that is wrong then a great deal of modern cosmology is in big trouble.

The discussions surrounding this new data should be interesting.

 

[ArcCentral]

"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said.

I must say, that I have never given credence to the statement that it's nonsense to think about what happened before the Big bang. In fact, I'm to the point of calling the Big Bang nonsense. :lol:

Like hawking saying it's like asking whats north of the north pole, while I'd like to jamb that pole up his you know what for saying it. At least some people are following some words of wisdom from Einstein when he said that imagination is more important than knowledge.

 

[DrRocket]

"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said.

I must say, that I have never given credence to the statement that it's nonsense to think about what happened before the Big bang. In fact, I'm to the point of calling the Big Bang nonsense. :lol:

Like hawking saying it's like asking whats north of the north pole, while I'd like to jamb that pole up his you know what for saying it. At least some people are following some words of wisdom from Einstein when he said that imagination is more important than knowledge.

Einstein said a lot of things. But he had a lot of knowledge.

Imagination in the absence of knowledge is quite often indistinguishable from hallucination.

The Big Bang as described by general relativity may or may not be correct. But the description is the best that is currently available using the best theory of gravitation that we now have -- general relativity. Within the guidelines of general relativity, Hawking's statement is quite correct -- it makes no sense whatever to talk about a "before" the big bang. That is simply a result of the mathematics and it is not open to debate.

If you want to debate that notion sensibly then you need to first propose an alternative framework in which to describe gravity and the big bang. Until you can do that you are talking from the same anatomical feature that you mentioned with respect to the pole.

Nice threat against a guy in a wheel chair. Unfortunately this is an intellectual debate not a bar room brawl. The weapons involve the intellect. You seem to be unarmed. Hawking is not.

You would be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme.


Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[ArcCentral]

Einstein said a lot of things. But he had a lot of knowledge.

Yes, he had enough knowledge to know that imagination was more important than knowledge.

Imagination in the absence of knowledge is quite often indistinguishable from hallucination.

I'll consider that your problem and not mine, as you are obviously short in the category of imagination.

The Big Bang as described by general relativity may or may not be correct.

No kidding!

But the description is the best that is currently available using the best theory of gravitation that we now have -- general relativity.

Well blow me down! yer so smart!

Within the guidelines of general relativity, Hawking's statement is quite correct -- it makes no sense whatever to talk about a "before" the big bang. That is simply a result of the mathematics and it is not open to debate.

A matter of opinion, since as you said earlier that the Big Bang may not be correct.

ant to debate that notion sensibly then you need to first propose an alternative framework in which to describe gravity and the big bang. Until you can do that you are talking from the same anatomical feature that you mentioned with respect to the pole.

I'll debate that by whatever means I so deem, and will not use you in any way as a guide, thankyou.

Nice threat against aguy in a wheel chair.

I'll take that as a compliment coming from a guy like you.

ld be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme.

Wow!did you think of that yourself?

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. - Plato

[

Well I guess you sure told me! :lol:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Great ArcCentral. You abuse a wheelchair guy because he's smarter than you and can't walk. Great standard ..... NOT.

 

[kyle_baron]

quote]Einstein said a lot of things. But he had a lot of knowledge.

Yes, he had enough knowledge to know that imagination was more important than knowledge.

Imagination in the absence of knowledge is quite often indistinguishable from hallucination.

I'll consider that your problem and not mine, as you are obviously short in the category of imagination.

The Big Bang as described by general relativity may or may not be correct.

No kidding!

But the description is the best that is currently available using the best theory of gravitation that we now have -- general relativity.

Well blow me down! yer so smart!

Within the guidelines of general relativity, Hawking's statement is quite correct -- it makes no sense whatever to talk about a "before" the big bang. That is simply a result of the mathematics and it is not open to debate.

A matter of opinion, since as you said earlier that the Big Bang may not be correct.

ant to debate that notion sensibly then you need to first propose an alternative framework in which to describe gravity and the big bang. Until you can do that you are talking from the same anatomical feature that you mentioned with respect to the pole.

I'll debate that by whatever means I so deem, and will not use you in any way as a guide, thankyou.

Nice threat against aguy in a wheel chair.

I'll take that as a compliment coming from a guy like you.

ld be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme.

Wow!did you think of that yourself?

:mrgreen: :lol:

 

[DrRocket]

ld be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme.

Wow!did you think of that yourself?

If you are going to quote me I would appreciate it if you quoted me correctly. I do not appreciate your editing my words to match what you wish I had said. To put the record straigh what I said was"

"You would be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme."

Deliberate misquotes are not condoned.

 

[ArcCentral]

Great ArcCentral. You abuse a wheelchair guy because he's smarter than you and can't walk. Great standard ..... NOT.

It is not me who addressed him as a guy in a wheelchair, but as a guy that said time before the Big Bang is like being north of the north pole.
Get your facts straight before you set me to some kind of standard.

Speaking of standards, you being a moderator and all. Why is it that DrRocket gets a pass, when he personally insults members of this board on a daily basis? His caustic approach deserves at the very least a warning by almost any forum I have ever been on.
Great standard? NOT

 

[ArcCentral]

ld be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme.

Wow!did you think of that yourself?

If you are going to quote me I would appreciate it if you quoted me correctly. I do not appreciate your editing my words to match what you wish I had said. To put the record straigh what I said was"

"You would be well advised to obtain some of that knowledge stuff that you apparently lack in the extreme."

Deliberate misquotes are not condoned.

Had a problem with the board software, or call it a glitch. When I typed in quotes, it also removed what was being quoted.

 

[DrRocket]

quote]Einstein said a lot of things. But he had a lot of knowledge.

Yes, he had enough knowledge to know that imagination was more important than knowledge.

Imagination in the absence of knowledge is quite often indistinguishable from hallucination.

I'll consider that your problem and not mine, as you are obviously short in the category of imagination.

Kyle, Kyle

You seem unable to even attribute your quotes correctly. I said that, not ArcCentral, as you well know.

You really do need to learn enough science and work on your perception until you can tell the difference between imagination and fantasy, and between vision and hallucination. There is, and I recognize that you have difficulty in causing the correctd synapses to fire to make the distinction, quite a difference.

You should not criticize some else's imagination until you have sufficient understanding to know what imagination is and are able to recognize it. That might require your obtaining an education, as it is quite evident that self-teaching, in your case, is not working very well.

Try hard and see what you can do. Perhaps you can learn enough to begin to understand science at some level. But don't become discouraged if the current trend of zero progress continues. It is not your fault. There is, after all, a genetic component to intelligence. A deficiency in that regard does not, by itself, mean that you are a bad person.

"Stupid is as stupid does." --- Forest Gump

 

[DrRocket]

Great ArcCentral. You abuse a wheelchair guy because he's smarter than you and can't walk. Great standard ..... NOT.

It is not me who addressed him as a guy in a wheelchair, but as a guy that said time before the Big Bang is like being north of the north pole.
Get your facts straight before you set me to some kind of standard.

Here are the facts. What you said was:

"Like hawking saying it's like asking whats north of the north pole, while I'd like to jamb that pole up his you know what for saying it. " -- ArcCentral

THAT is pretty clearly a physical sort of threat against someone who is well known to be confined to a wheelchair without even the ability to speak.

He is certainly a LOT smarter than you are. He is also most certainly not able to defend himself in a physical manner.

But as noted earlier the contest is not physical but intellectual. Hawking is far better armed for such a contest than are you. This is a bit of an understatement as that distinction appears to be rather widespread.

 

[ArcCentral]

Great ArcCentral. You abuse a wheelchair guy because he's smarter than you and can't walk. Great standard ..... NOT.

It is not me who addressed him as a guy in a wheelchair, but as a guy that said time before the Big Bang is like being north of the north pole.
Get your facts straight before you set me to some kind of standard.

Here are the facts. What you said was:

"Like hawking saying it's like asking whats north of the north pole, while I'd like to jamb that pole up his you know what for saying it. " -- ArcCentral

THAT is pretty clearly a physical sort of threat against someone who is well known to be confined to a wheelchair without even the ability to speak.

He is certainly a LOT smarter than you are. He is also most certainly not able to defend himself in a physical manner.

But as noted earlier the contest is not physical but intellectual. Hawking is far better armed for such a contest than are you. This is a bit of an understatement as that distinction appears to be rather widespread.

It's not a physical threat, and you know it. It's the same as saying stick it where the sun don't shine, just a different play of words. And here, you wanna make me out to be some kind of sick puppy that truly physically attacks wheelchair bound individuals? Talk about sick.
Let me take something back. Maybe you do, actually have, a healthy imagination.

 

[CommonMan]

Hold on boys. The reason I posted this thread was not to fight between one another but to get comments about what this sceincetist said.
"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."
Dr. Rocket is correct in what he says on the information we have now. But it seems that Kamionkowski thinks it can be done. We will have to wait and see if he can probide proof of what he says.

 

[DrRocket]

Here are the facts. What you said was:

"Like hawking saying it's like asking whats north of the north pole, while I'd like to jamb that pole up his you know what for saying it. " -- ArcCentral

THAT is pretty clearly a physical sort of threat against someone who is well known to be confined to a wheelchair without even the ability to speak.

He is certainly a LOT smarter than you are. He is also most certainly not able to defend himself in a physical manner.

But as noted earlier the contest is not physical but intellectual. Hawking is far better armed for such a contest than are you. This is a bit of an understatement as that distinction appears to be rather widespread.

It's not a physical threat, and you know it. It's the same as saying stick it where the sun don't shine, just a different play of words. And here, you wanna make me out to be some kind of sick puppy that truly physically attacks wheelchair bound individuals? Talk about sick.
Let me take something back. Maybe you do, actually have, a healthy imagination.

Certainly it is a physical threat. It is simply one that you are in no position to carry out. It might be just a figure of speech, but it conveys a message -- the message that you are hopelessly outclassed on an intellectual basis and therefore can only hope to cope with your opposition on a physical basis. Basically you have admitted that you don't know what your are talking about but are willing to defend an indefensible position by whatever means are available. Since logic and science are not available, you are left with nothing but physical assault.

When one is outclassed on both intellectual and physical terms, one has no place to turn. That is apparently your current situation. In your physicala terms you are fighting way out of your weight class -- Pee Wee Herman versus Mike Tyson.

Your ideas have been shown to be totally worthless, discredited completely on the basis of science, mathematics and logic. You have proved that you undersand neither the facts of observational physics nor the mathematical theories that they support. Physical threats are ineffectual. You are checkmated (KO'd to you), and apparently don't posses the wherewithal to recognize it.

 

[derekmcd]

Physics has been rapidly evolving at a breathtaking pace over the last 150 years. Some of the best and brightest this planet has produced have been wrong. It is completely silly to make a statement similar to what was made previously in this thread. I, sincerely, doubt Einstein, even for a moment, intended to shame the likes of Newton and Maxwell for being wrong (or not completely correct). Einstein's static universe was shattered by Friedman. Do you thing for a second that Friedmann had anything derogatory to say about Einstein? Hubble? LeMaitre? Robertson? Walker? And a whole host of others...

How about those that argued against Einstein with regards to quantum mechanics. Did Max Born degrade Einstein?

Or the fact that Einstein's denied the physical existence of black holes... you think Chandressekar, Penrose, Hawking, et. al. considered Einstein anything less than a genius?

Hawking lost a bet on black holes... does that diminish his work?

Should Niels Bohr be impaled for his relatively simplistic view on the atom?

More directly related to the article originally posted... Should Guth have to submit himself to these types of comments because his initial inflation theory required modification?

What kind of bloated ego must one have to argue against outdated knowledge that has been built upon with new knowledge as our technology grows? Especially when you don't even understand the new knowledge...

 

[ArcCentral]

Certainly it is a physical threat.

It might be just a figure of speech, but

Well come now rocket, you can't have it both ways, but let me make this real easy for you, cuz I'm the one that typed out the figure of speech.
It was a figure of speech!
Get it?
Good God! - Are you for real?

The rest of your post is the same old, tired, drawn out, caustic behavior, that should have gotten you banned many moons ago, but since the mods give you a pass on this, there is really nothing I can do. So you are free to be a terrorist. Yes Rocket, you are a thread terrorist. I hope you are happy with that.

 

[ArcCentral]

"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."
.

Not that this gentleman is right or wrong, but it's never crazy to consider any idea when dealing with the unknown, and consideration before the Big bang can't ever be off the table, regardless of what anybody says, even if it comes from a head cheese the likes of Hawking or others.

 

[DrRocket]

"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."
.

Not that this gentleman is right or wrong, but it's never crazy to consider any idea when dealing with the unknown, and consideration before the Big bang can't ever be off the table, regardless of what anybody says, even if it comes from a head cheese.

Unless you can phrase the argument in logical terms, which in this case requires a clear alternative formulation to general relativity, you may as well be listening to a head cheese, and it often appears that you are.

It is important in this context to rather clearly state what that model is that has the opportunity to "hold up". That unstated model is a critical piece of the action, and upon the mathematical formulation and experimental evidence for that model hangs the entire case. For the model to permit a notion of "before the big bang" it must be something other than general relativity. If it is something other than general relativity then it should be closely investigated for internal consistency and for compatibility with the vast amount of experimental data that supports Einstein's theory.

Can you fathom that, or do you want to make more Cretinish mock threats against those who actually understand the basis for current theories ? Such people understand the limitations of those theories as well, and address new theories from a perspective of understanding and knowledge of the facts. Ignorance is neither an effective weapon nor a valid defense. A head cheese is a poor substitute for a brain.

 

[kyle_baron]

Kyle, Kyle

You seem unable to even attribute your quotes correctly. I said that, not ArcCentral, as you well know.

You really do need to learn enough science and work on your perception until you can tell the difference between imagination and fantasy, and between vision and hallucination. There is, and I recognize that you have difficulty in causing the correctd synapses to fire to make the distinction, quite a difference.

You should not criticize some else's imagination until you have sufficient understanding to know what imagination is and are able to recognize it. That might require your obtaining an education, as it is quite evident that self-teaching, in your case, is not working very well.

Try hard and see what you can do. Perhaps you can learn enough to begin to understand science at some level. But don't become discouraged if the current trend of zero progress continues. It is not your fault. There is, after all, a genetic component to intelligence. A deficiency in that regard does not, by itself, mean that you are a bad person.

"Stupid is as stupid does." --- Forest Gump

Yes, I know. That was a written mistake, by Arc Central - So what, Big Deal. I was laughing along with him, at his acute sence of sarcasm, which IMO, is refreshing.

As far as my imagination is concerned, it's quite healthy. I believe 3 U.S. Patents would be sufficient. I have some advice for you, why don't you step out of your comfortable little box, open the lid, and take a deep breath of fresh air.

As far as the rest of your broken record is concerned, - "obtaining an education" I'll simply ignore, now, as well as in the future.

 

[ArcCentral]

Unless you can phrase the argument in logical terms, which in this case requires a clear alternative formulation to general relativity, you may as well be listening to a head cheese, and it often appears that you are.

Well Rocket, that is what I do, listen to the head cheese that is, but I do have my ideas, and when they come, which is often, I run with them regardless of the rules that you think I must be following. Thats right Rocket, I will not be calling on you for permisssion to go forward with my imagination, and when you get it in your thick head that I don't owe you anything on these boards, perhaps we can talk in a civil manner.

It is important in this context to rather clearly state what that model is that has the opportunity to "hold up". That unstated model is a critical piece of the action, and upon the mathematical formulation and experimental evidence for that model hangs the entire case. For the model to permit a notion of "before the big bang" it must be something other than general relativity. If it is something other than general relativity then it should be closely investigated for internal consistency and for compatibility with the vast amount of experimental data that supports Einstein's theory.

And there you go making rules. Maybe I don't want to do things exactly your way. Oh! wait a minute! I didn't check to see if what I just said was in the Rocket Rule Book!
News Flash!
I don't look up to you for advice

Can you fathom that, or do you want to make more Cretinish mock threats against those who actually understand the basis for current theories ?

You're really hung up on that comment, aren't you? Since we are giving out advice, let me pass this along.

Get over it!

 

[dragon04]

It's one thing to keep an open mind to "new" theories and hypotheses, and quite another to insult those who profess the current theories and hypotheses.

Hawking is a "Cheese Head" because he believes as he does based on the best facts and data we currently have, and you're NOT a "Cheese Head" because you believe differently?

See what I'm saying?

 

[ArcCentral]

It's one thing to keep an open mind to "new" theories and hypotheses, and quite another to insult those who profess the current theories and hypotheses.

Hawking is a "Cheese Head" because he believes as he does based on the best facts and data we currently have, and you're NOT a "Cheese Head" because you believe differently?

See what I'm saying?

Who's calling Hawking a cheesehead? The phrase was head cheese, as in top dog, big kahuna.
Do people read and then see what they want to see?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Mod Hat On ****

To all (including me)

Please lets restrict future comments in this thread to the subject, and lay off the rest, OK?

Thanx
Wayne