if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?

[Patrick fenex]

I see the Big Bang as a 'quantum leap event' within a much more complex, multi-dimensional reality. The energy within the universe may have access to all of the energy within reality. In other words reality may be an open system in which many complex conversions and resulting temporary isolations with fewer dimensions take place. The universe may be preparing for another quantum leap when the fabric of space-time has been stretched to the max.

Interesting: I wonder if there is more than one process by which a new reality, (baby universe) could become manifest? In your post you alluded to the possibility that there could be a limit to the elasticity of the fabric of space and time. Perhaps space and time are in reality independent of one another. A temporal process evolving independent of space would probably require an origin unique from our perspective.

 

[Patrick fenex]

I wouldn't want to see this forum dig too deeply into politics or religion, even though one or the other may lead to our extinction.

"Oh, what a tangled web, we hope NOT to weave".

 

[agent00seven]

Interesting: I wonder if there is more than one process by which a new reality, (baby universe) could become manifest? In your post you alluded to the possibility that there could be a limit to the elasticity of the fabric of space and time. Perhaps space and time are in reality independent of one another. A temporal process evolving independent of space would probably require an origin unique from our perspective.

I don't see space and time being independent of one another - at least not in this universe. I see both as properties of energy. In other words, energy must remain in motion to remain in existence. I see energy having to manufacture a space in which to move into and time to do so.

That's the simplistic view pertaining to this universe, but there may be places where energy has constructed a more complex space-time fabric involving more dimensions. It's already proven it can go from a pre-Big Bang to an entirely different phase with entirely different, more complex properties. What does it do next? Does it contract or quantum leap into something more complex? Does it just keep expanding as the space-time fabric decays, if it can decay? The energy can't decay, according to the conservation of energy law, but the laws of physics as we know them may be able to decay, allowing all the energy in the universe to become something unrecognizable.

I also don't see time or space being able to exist without the energy needed to produce them. In other words, I don't believe in voids or completely empty space. It's a lot more difficult for us to wrap our heads around that idea than to imagine energy as the reason why space and time exist.

My vision of the pre-Big Bang is a compressed ball of energy attempting to squeeze itself out of existence. Because I believe energy must always have an escape hatch to prevent such an event, there is a point at which it can be squeezed no more. Upon reaching maximum squeeze, the pre-Big Bang suddenly reacted and became what is now known as the Big Bang. That's the way I see it.

 

[agent00seven]

"Oh, what a tangled web, we hope NOT to weave".

We've got enough to unweave as it is.

 

[agent00seven]

When cosmologists say that the big bang happened everywhere, they're attempting to describe the instant of creation. Where the diameter of the Universe was a singularity, that was the smallest planck scale object that could still exist. Everything that existed outside the singularity, did not exist. It was an imaginary reality. Analogues , to the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics. It would be like asking what is south, of the south pole? A few trillionths of a second after the instant of creation, the inflationary epoch expanded the volume of the universe at a speed much greater than that of light. No laws were broken. Since, it was the fabric of space and time that expanded. Not the elements within. If anyone proclaims that there was nothing before the big bang, is in error. By espousing that there was nothing, they could be assuming that they had privileged information prior to the big bang. The correct response should be that we don't know.

There has always been some form of energy in existence. The energy within the universe and any energy that may be outside of it is eternal, but not necessarily infinite, according to the conservation of energy law. One point I like to make is this: In order for anything to exist, something had to have always been in existence. Something cannot emerge from nothing or nowhere, except in the imaginations of intelligent beings.

The Big Bang was essentially a catalytic conversion. Catalyst - unknown.

 

[Harry Costas]

Sometimes the herd allows a theory to dominate regardless of facts or evidence.
The Big Bang theory needs to be looked at with open mind.
Comes from understanding science and proving the issues.
Don’t take my word for it.
Research to your heart's content, do not stop, its a long journey.

 

[Lariliss]

Physics is struggling to make a common law or a set of laws that brings us to closer determination of the observed Universe. This job needs determined starting point, that is big bang accepted by now. What kind of 'before' is more occupied with imagination or beliefs (also according to Stephen Hawking).

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, what is wrong with "without beginning or end" instead of infinite?

We do not have the sensory apparatus to comprehend that, so we invent meaningless words like infinite. Here is an example. If that is not a language one understands, one calls it gobbledegook (= infinity).

У нас нет сенсорного аппарата, чтобы понять это, поэтому мы придумываем бессмысленные слова, такие как бесконечность.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, "So my answer *before the bb*, old stars and globular clusters dated older than the universe"

Has this not been attributed to test methods?

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Rod, "So my answer *before the bb*, old stars and globular clusters dated older than the universe"

Has this not been attributed to test methods?

Cat

Not really directed at me but to meaty not to dive in
Neighbor BB areas? reason for Dark flows?

Ciclic ugly not such a bad idea

 

[Catastrophe]

VPE,
Certainly not directly at you, or anyone. Just a statement of fact. Different test methods give different results. With cyclic models, you would not expect anything to come through a nexus unchanged - especially not stars.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE,
Certainly not directly at you, or anyone. Just a statement of fact. Different test methods give different results. With cyclic models, you would not expect anything to come through a nexus unchanged - especially not stars.

Cat

Guess it all comes down to 1bb or more than 1bb area.
If we are all that exists then cyclic might never happen or might take unthinkable times scales to happen.
BB could be just a freak event of nature and when done it's done and everything slowly reverts back to non existence.
Then some very long time before the freak event happens again.
Cyclic but only as random freak events that don't repeat the same universe.

If we have more than 1bb area then cyclic will happen at some point.
Whatever happens it's sure to be ugly, cannibal, merge, bb area ripped apart, bounce etc.
Cyclic in some format is guaranteed but it might not be pretty and could just be a seed to start a new one and the starter is all but destroyed in the process.

I'm leaving this universe couple days before that happens

 

[Catastrophe]

I don't think the human race is the only intelligent species around. After all, we have aqueous living dolphins that are intelligent. In terms of life in general, look at the millions of species on this planet. If all this can arise from one favourable planet, who is going to tell me that there is not life (primitive up) in all the billions of planets around the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies?

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I don't think the human race is the only intelligent species around. After all, we have aqueous living dolphins that are intelligent. In terms of life in general, look at the millions of species on this planet. If all this can arise from one favourable planet, who is going to tell me that there is not life (primitive up) in all the billions of planets around the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies?

Cat

Lots of stars in the universe for sure so lots of places they could be.
Most of the stars are in the wrong area of a galaxy, wrong star type, temperamental stars, to little metal, to little silicon, no moon, to much radiation, to many asteroids etc etc.
Then we need the right size planet as either an earth/moon system or a moon of a big planet and life to start almost straight away or they become Venus.

ET in this vast universe i have no doubt exists somewhere but so many check boxes are needed for us it might be 1/2 way across the universe.
And when ET is found they might be worlds that stay as dinosaurs for all it's history.

Life i think will be everywhere it can be before a world turns to Venus and lots of frozen moons under the surface.

 

[Catastrophe]

We shall just have to wait and see then.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

The Big Bang Theory has a following.
They protect a theory that has no evidence to support the foundations.
Science questions and resolves.
Cosmic radiation background provides evidence that the universe is endless.
Hubble expansion of the universe is in question. Observations show clusters, our galaxy belongs to a local cluster of galaxies (265 about) with M87 the centre. Our cluster is part of a larger super cluster of local groups. There are over 11 super clusters and still counting.
To agree on a theory because there is a lot of people supporting is not founded without evidence or understanding.
If we trillions of galaxies in all directions, think of the time scale to form and change the objects.

 

[Catastrophe]

There are lots of things correct (or apparently so) about BBT, but the fatal weakness is close to t = 0 where this unsafe notion of a singularity is proposed. Why not give the due accord to better ideas (imho) like a nexus as part of a cycle?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

If there are a few things correct about the BB, what they.

 

[Catastrophe]

See BBT, except for very close to "t = 0" where physics breaks down, due to mathematical fictions like division by zero and infinity.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Please explain your point

 

[Catastrophe]

Big Bang - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Big_Bang

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its ...
‎History of the Big Bang theory · ‎Big Bang nucleosynthesis · ‎Category:Big Bang



What is the Big Bang Theory? - Phys.org
https://phys.org › Astronomy & Space › Astronomy

In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly ...
18 Dec 2015 · Uploaded by Fraser Cain


The big bang | Institute of Physics
https://www.iop.org › physics-stepping-stones › big-bang

Albert Einstein came up with the ground breaking theory in 1915. But it was another physicist, Alexander Friedmann, who studied the equations and made a ...


Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

There are lots of things correct (or apparently so) about BBT, but the fatal weakness is close to t = 0 where this unsafe notion of a singularity is proposed. Why not give the due accord to better ideas (imho) like a nexus as part of a cycle?

Cat

No problem with the Nexus idea for a never ending cyclic universe.
Only trouble with it is the chicken/egg problem of Energy for it to happen on the first Nexus.
Every idea comes down to that E from?

We are for sure missing a step to energy creation for the chicken.
A simple solution for it is just a property of void space.

 

[Catastrophe]

There is no problem with chickens and eggs if they form a cyclic system.

Of course, chickens are not universes, so any analogy is not precise.

My model (the model which I support) proposes a cyclic Universe. Imagine a string of sausages, tied off at regular intervals - and forming a cyclic string. Again, no analogy is perfect, but here the tie-offs (constrictions) correspond to the series of nexus constrictions in the cyclic Universe model.

We are not equipped (as a species) to understand the Universe at this time. The proof of this, I believe, is that we entertain a theory suggesting that the Universe (at 'infinite' density and temperature) comes into existence out of nothing - completely the contrary to every experience in science. The cyclic model may not be without its problems, but it is much more believable than the
spontaneous generation of singularities.

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Both Einstein and Minkowski made it abundantly clear that neither space nor time exist independently and that they instead form a continuum called space-time, which is actually a single phenomenon.

Unless a facet of our reality which we refer to as space, pre-existed the singular event known as the big -bang, there wouldn't even have been a pseudo-medium into which the big bang could have emerged and as stated above, space and time being a single phenomenon means that where space exists , so too does time. From this I can only conclude that an instance of space-time did indeed pre-exist the big bang

The facet of the space-time continuum, which we refer to as time,is most peculiar, because while space is undergoing its current phase of metric expansion, time AKA progression, follows suite and also increases its separation from the big bang, (resulting in the phenomenon we call entropy. )

However If the space-time of our universe was contracting instead of expanding time would once again progress in the same direction as space but in a contracting universe that progression would be toward instead of away from the big bang. Does that mean that time would run backwards? No !!! as a probably fictitious military commander whose army was retreating was supposed to have said,,, "We are not retreating!" "We are just advancing in a different direction!
Cause would still precede effect but entropy would be reversed, Strange,,,,Yes!!! But, at least not paradoxical

As anyone who has read this far, can probably tell, I am a proponent of cyclical/ bounce cosmology and as strange as my latest thoughts on this subject may seem they could offer an explanation for the apparent anomaly which required the proposal of a period of faster than light inflation in order to make the figures add up
with expansion theory.

Its rather late now so I will continue with this post tomorrow.

 

[Harry Costas]

Time and space
Space cannot contract or expand.

Time cannot be expanded or contract