Is this the first Big Bang?

[csmyth3025]

As I understand it, at the very earliest times (from zero to ~10^-43 seconds) temperatures were so high (>10^27K) that the forces we know about today were unified (some think). I can think of no reason to speculate about what happened before this "Plank epoch". Does it make any difference to our understanding of the universe whether this state lasted for 10^-43 seconds or 10^43 years? Does the question of how long this time lasted even have any meaning?

Chris

 

[silylene]

Before the Big Bang was there an empty Space?

You use the word 'before'. I think a more fundamental question is, whether time itself existed without the Big Bang. My understanding is that time may not have existed before the Big Bang. Without time, there can be no 'before'. So I think you need to establish that time itself exists, with or without a universe...or perhaps better phrased, that time as a dimension exists if the other spatial dimensions are absent (there are no real spatial dimensions without a Universe). My understanding is that the Big Bang created space and its spatial dimensions, and created the time dimension into which it expanded.

Without 'time', there can be no 'before'. So your question is without meaning.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

There is a competing theory with the Big Bang Inflation model. The other theory comes out of M-theory and does indeed have multiple Big Bangs/Crunches, if not an infinite number of them. It also offers an explanation of dark energy.

The Planck telescope, which is just starting to really do business, should help tell us which theory is right - Big Bang Inflation or the M-theory cosmology. This question is included in the science objectives for the mission, so if you're curiosu to learn more, just check out the Planck web site.

If I'm not mistaken, the m-theory version does have time existing before the big bang, as well ..... but, don't quote me on that

 

[darkmatter4brains]

As I understand it, at the very earliest times (from zero to ~10^-43 seconds) temperatures were so high (>10^27K) that the forces we know about today were unified (some think). I can think of no reason to speculate about what happened before this "Plank epoch". Does it make any difference to our understanding of the universe whether this state lasted for 10^-43 seconds or 10^43 years? Does the question of how long this time lasted even have any meaning?

Chris

yes and, in fact, many physicists spend most of their days contemplating what happened before this time, whether they be quantum gravity theorists or m-theorists ... If we ever want some kind of unified theory, answering these questions will be important.

 

[Fallingstar1971]

"God is Outside the Box"....This is the title of a paper I wrote years ago. An attempt to explain what was there before the Big Bang (a question we probably may never know the answer too) I mean how do you get something from nothing? You don't. Plain and simple..
Before the Big Bang there was absolute nothingness - which is not empty space - it is the nonexistence of Space / Time --- of Everything. Now, how can the Big Bang...'Bang' so to speak? How do you get a reaction like that out of absolute nothingness? Again..You don't. Or better yet, there is currently no known explanation....
Therefore GOD.
In my opinion this Supreme Being (be he Man / Woman / Father of Jesus / Budah - there are a hundred different choices on this one planet alone - let alone throughout all intelligence in the universe) can be the only explanation for the Big Bang and the only real proof that a Supreme Being exists at all.

You have no frame of reference. Prior to the big bang there was indeed "nothing", however, since no life has ever experienced this state of "true nothing" it would be impossible to assign properties to it. So the statement that it is impossible to get something from nothing would have to be either FALSE (I give the universe as evidence) or UNKNOWN (since technology currently cannot give you an environment without "space")

So then, I have to ask, if God was capable of being created from nothing, then why not the Universe?

Star

 

[csmyth3025]

So then, I have to ask, if God was capable of being created from nothing, then why not the Universe?

Star

I have to agree with this logical inference and the related argument that "If God has always existed, then why not the Universe?". The latter argument can be premised on the idea that the so-called "cosmic egg" always existed and, for reasons unknown, destabilized or the notion that the universe is cyclic in nature.

Chris

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Who says God was created? I think the whole reason questions like this sound funny is it involves a limited mode of thinking we humans seem to be stuck with - that is, we think linearly in time. Things happen sequentially, and are split into their opposites - creation and destruction, or beginning and ending, or before and after - always in that order. To ask if something was created, implies some beginning , in time , for that thing. Before that time, it did not exist, after that time, it does exist, and at some future date it will not exist again. But, if God exists outside time, then the question of Him being created (or destroyed) no longer has any meaning. Outside time, there is no earlier time to go back to and "witness" a creation - everything exists in the eternal "now".

Now, I know it's hard for the human mind to grapple with an "existence" outside time , but reality doesn’t seem to be limited by what our minds are capable of understanding or perceiving. Rather, we can limit ourselves, by thinking all there is to reality is what we perceive of it. Indian philosophers have been grappling with these thoughts for millenia and have some pretty sophisticated systems of thought based around it.

 

[csmyth3025]

I suppose the answer to the subject of this thread is maybe....maybe not.

Chris

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I suppose the answer to the subject of this thread is maybe....maybe not.

Chris

:lol:

yeah, that pretty much sums it up

 

[captdude]

I have recently read about a theory that takes on the problem of what came BEFORE the big bang. This theory also states that the big bang is a cyclical process that has taken place an infinite number of times. In a nut shell the theory says that there are at least two "branes" floating in a higher dimension of space/time. As these branes move through their higher dimension of space/time one of them occasionally "bumps" into another. When these two branes bump into each other they release an uncalculable amount of energy in the area where they overlap - and the area where they overlap is known to us as the big bang.
This theory supposedly takes into account the inflation of the universe, as well as, the expansion of the universe.

 

[csmyth3025]

I have recently read about a theory that takes on the problem of what came BEFORE the big bang. This theory also states that the big bang is a cyclical process that has taken place an infinite number of times. In a nut shell the theory says that there are at least two "branes" floating in a higher dimension of space/time. As these branes move through their higher dimension of space/time one of them occasionally "bumps" into another. When these two branes bump into each other they release an uncalculable amount of energy in the area where they overlap - and the area where they overlap is known to us as the big bang.
This theory supposedly takes into account the inflation of the universe, as well as, the expansion of the universe.

I believe the difference between a conjecture and a bona fide theory is that a theory has some aspect that is testable, at least in principle. I'm not sure that the theory you mention has any testable aspects. I could be wrong about this, so if anyone knows if there are any proposed tests of this theory I'd like to hear about them.

Chris

 

[captdude]

This theory was developed by Steinhart and his colleague Neil Turok and it is an outgrowth of string theory. The theory is named "the ekpyrotic universe." Data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite could provide evidence to support or rule out the theory by giving a more detailed account of the distribution of matter and radiation in the early universe.


The article I am refering to can be found by clicking the link below.


http://forliberation.org/wp/?p=129

 

[csmyth3025]

This theory was developed by Steinhart and his colleague Neil Turok and it is an outgrowth of string theory. The theory is named "the ekpyrotic universe." Data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite could provide evidence to support or rule out the theory by giving a more detailed account of the distribution of matter and radiation in the early universe.


The article I am refering to can be found by clicking the link below.


http://forliberation.org/wp/?p=129

The idea that Steinhart and Turok put forth is interesting, but, again, it needs to be testable. They seem to feel that LISA might provide evidence in support of their theory (or, at least, a lack of evidence supporting cosmic inflation). Others seem to feel that any results from LISA wont provide a test of their theory. Quoting from the article:

Joel Primack, a physicist and cosmologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz, isn’t even all that interested in whether it’s right or wrong. “I think it’s silly to make much of a production about this stuff,” he says. “I’d much rather spend my time working on the really important questions observational cosmology has been handing us about dark matter and dark energy. The ideas in these papers are essentially untestable.”

I guess time will tell. It's posible that some test of this theory might be devised in the future. Right now I think most scientists are uncomfortable with the idea of substituting 6 or 7 unseen dimensions for (so far) unseen dark matter and dark energy - which, at least, seems to have some secondary measurable effects.

Chris

 

[captdude]

Their have been many "untestable theories" that have, in the end, been tested by means that were either unfeasable or not thought out at the time. Even if their ideas are untestable they have built a framework that is quite interesting to ponder.
In addition, I for one strongly believe that other dimensions play a role in our universe. Quantum entanglement and the seemingly instantaneous exchange of information that far exceeds the speed of light might be explained by that information traveling through other dimensions. The heisenburg uncertainty principle, bose einstein condensate, the energy in a vacuum and general quantum wierdness seem to all fit nicely into that idea from my viewpoint.

 

[csmyth3025]

Their have been many "untestable theories" that have, in the end, been tested by means that were either unfeasable or not thought out at the time. Even if their ideas are untestable they have built a framework that is quite interesting to ponder....

I agree.

Chris

 

[darkmatter4brains]

That is also the theory I was referring to. The Planck satellite will be testing for this theory .. it won't offer definitive proof, but could put the existing body of evidence in it's court, and against inflation. I doubt it though.

 

[captdude]

That is also the theory I was referring to. The Planck satellite will be testing for this theory .. it won't offer definitive proof, but could put the existing body of evidence in it's court, and against inflation. I doubt it though.

I have noticed that more times than not - our ideas on the unknown aspects of QM are compatible.

 

[Technetium]

I read somewhere that it's believed by most physicists and astronomers that we are in a loop.
The loop of boom>expansion>retraction>boom... ect

Not exactly described as that. But I read it's described as a balloon. You can blow it up, surface area increases. Till it gets to the point it can't handle. It pops, implodes everything in the universe then bursts it back out again.

That's as far as i read, but I can't say that's true because It's just what's believed by others.
But in my opinion. I think It's right.
We know this universe is expanding. It's been proved.
But how can it continue to expand forever?
I know it's huge now but how far will it actually go ?

This is something we can't really prove, I don't think we can possibly create any kind of technology to detect this.
So I guess it's just going to have to be a wonder.

 

[csmyth3025]

I read somewhere that it's believed by most physicists and astronomers that we are in a loop.
The loop of boom>expansion>retraction>boom... ect

...This is something we can't really prove, I don't think we can possibly create any kind of technology to detect this.
So I guess it's just going to have to be a wonder.

I'm dont think that the "cyclical universe" idea is widely accepted in the scientific community. The theory that's mow considered the "standard model" is the Lamda-CDM model. The Wikipedia article on this can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamda_CDM

Observations indicate that the universe is "flat" - which basically means that it will continue to expand forever. Recent observations also indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We already have the technology to detect these sort of things.

People are generally pretty comfortable with the idea that everything has a beginning and an end. The notion that the the universe has a beginning but just keeps expanding forever afterward is hard for a lot of people to accept.

There are things in science that even scientists aren't real crazy about. Dark matter, dark energy, quantum fluctations and quantum entanglement are ideas that tend to make a mess of the scientist's desire to craft a nice orderly explanation of how everything works in our world. In spite of the fact that these ideas may be inconvenient, if they fit the observations and no better idea is available, they're accepted (for the time being) until someone comes up with a better idea that not only fits the observations but hopefully predicts new things that scientists can test.

Chris

 

[captdude]

Observations indicate that the universe is "flat" - which basically means that it will continue to expand forever. Recent observations also indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We already have the technology to detect these sort of things.

The indication of a flat universe lends some credence to M-theory as well. If dark energy actually does send us into the "big rip" of the future. As I understand it, two membranes (the M in M-theory) floating in higher dimensions crash into each other due to some attracting force that exists between them. The crash results in a "big bang" within each brane that over comes the attracting force thereby driving the two of them apart.
Then, after the twin universes created by the pair of big bangs progress through their lives and under go a big rip (destroying all matter within each universe, sending temperatures at or near absolute zero and "flattening" each brane) the attracting force takes hold of them once again to start the cycle all over again.