PDA

View Full Version : Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang



Fraser
2008-Jun-13, 08:30 PM
What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, "There is no such thing as 'before the Big Bang.'" That's the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, "We just don't know." Carroll, as well as many other physicists [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/13/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/)

mcgowran
2008-Jun-14, 01:40 PM
OK, I'm a 1st timer and I admit I know nothing.
However, it seems to me on the one hand we are told not to believe in a God, for all sorts of reasons, but on the other hand we should believe that the Universe was born from an infinitely small, infinitely hot sub-atomic particle which "somehow" miraculously came into being out of nowhere. Sorry, but speaking as an Aetheist suddenly God sounds alot easier to believe in!

GOURDHEAD
2008-Jun-15, 12:56 PM
From the link:
"The WMAP snapshot of how the early universe looked shows it to be hot, dense and smooth [low entropy] over a wide region of space," said Carroll. "We don't understand why that is the case. That's an even bigger surprise than the inventory problem. Our universe just doesn’t look natural." Carroll said states of low-entropy are rare, plus of all the possible initial conditions that could have evolved into a universe like ours, the overwhelming majority have much higher entropy, not lower.

But the single most surprising phenomenon about the universe, said Carroll, is that things change. And it all happens in a consistent direction from past to future, throughout the universe.

"It's called the arrow of time," said Carroll. This arrow of time comes from the second law of thermodynamics, which invokes entropy. The law states that invariably, closed systems move from order to disorder over time. This law is fundamental to physics and astronomy.
I tend to treat "cosmologically smooth" loosely as being very similar to homogeneous and isotropic which make the doing of work less likely, i.e, high entropy. If this is not so I would appreciate a tutorial.

I have assumed a quantum of space, or time, or any of their constituents, and of whatever scale, requires a domain in which to exist in order to fluctuate. Why are those who postulate the initiation of the BB by a quantum fluctuation avoiding specifying the domain in which it happens?

Also not being addressed is the quantization of volumes of space (or the explanation of why it is not required) where expansion is nullified by whatever nullifies it.

Have I been blinded by the convenience of seeing gravity as counterposing entropy?

pzkpfw
2008-Jun-16, 01:15 AM
OK, I'm a 1st timer and I admit I know nothing.

I'm not a 1st timer and I still know nothing (relatively).



However, it seems to me on the one hand we are told not to believe in a God, for all sorts of reasons,...

By who? Plenty of people are happy to believe in some God and modern cosmology too. Scientific evidence for the BB is pretty well established, so many simply see that as part of how God "did it".

(e.g. I think the guy in this article is a Catholic http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL146364620080515?sp=true)



...but on the other hand we should believe that the Universe was born from an infinitely small, infinitely hot sub-atomic particle which "somehow" miraculously came into being out of nowhere.

That bit in bold isn't what the BB is about, and it is the opposite of what the article was about.



Sorry, but speaking as an Aetheist suddenly God sounds alot easier to believe in!

For the record, I'm an atheist too. My personal opinion is that belief in God only makes the "where did it all come from" problem harder to solve. (Due to recursion.)

Paul Leeks
2008-Jun-16, 02:11 AM
what was before the Big Bang...God!

everything is energy, thought is energy, thought is another dimension..God exist in another dimension,parallel universe( hindus call it Bhramaloka) and God(Paratma) is in YOU!(Astal Body)...God is a Soul Being.

not just how did universe come about...but why?

why because I LOVE YOU...that's why!

I love my friends and family..it's not an accident!

Paul Leeks(NZ)

Maksutov
2008-Jun-16, 07:32 AM
what was before the Big Bang...God!...Kindly read BAUT Rule 12 (http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845).
everyday is a new day!!BTW, "everyday" is an adjective. Based on the context, it appears you meant "every day".

geonuc
2008-Jun-16, 10:53 AM
Sorry, but speaking as an Aetheist suddenly God sounds alot easier to believe in!
Certainly seems that way, doesn't it? :)

Betsy3491
2008-Jun-17, 10:37 PM
I find the standard theory, that our universe emerged from a singularity, to be unsatisfying--to say the least. Because we would still have a situation where there was no time, and yet something changed to create our universe. That means that time itself just sprang into being with no antecedents.

Two other theories seem logically preferable:

1. There is a multiverse, that is, universes budding off from an infinite series of parent universes. This theory is also disquieting, but better I think.

2. There was no one moment when the universe began. Just as the Earth is spherical, so is time (in a sense). If you stand at the North Pole, there's no "north" anymore. The universe if finite, but has no true beginning or end--as Peter Lynds says.

RussT
2008-Jun-18, 05:00 AM
I find the standard theory, that our universe emerged from a singularity, to be unsatisfying--to say the least. Because we would still have a situation where there was no time, and yet something changed to create our universe. That means that time itself just sprang into being with no antecedents.

Two other theories seem logically preferable:

1. There is a multiverse, that is, universes budding off from an infinite series of parent universes. This theory is also disquieting, but better I think.

2. There was no one moment when the universe began. Just as the Earth is spherical, so is time (in a sense). If you stand at the North Pole, there's no "north" anymore. The universe if finite, but has no true beginning or end--as Peter Lynds says.

1. There is a multiverse, that is, universes budding off from an infinite series of parent universes. This theory is also disquieting, but better I think.

Yes, BUT.........Fractal Universe(s) is the much more reasonable, and according to Occam's Razor, the first most likely choice.

Fractal Universe(s) are much simpler, AND, gives the ability to actually be able to "Infer" 'what' is being communicated between universes.

Fractals work like this....

There are universe levels 'above' and 'below' OUR Universe.

SO, if there we 'something' in the universe level "above" ours, that we could "Infer" from our Universe, and then be able to 'Observe' 'something' (A Constant) coming to our universe, then we would have a place to begin understanding....How "Space" gets to our universe.

It just so happens that someone has posited exactly that...in fact there are several who have 'intuited' similar type scenarios that can be shown to fit together nicely.

Lisa Rabdall's "Gravity Leaking" to Our Universe.
Lee Smolin's "Constant at the "pit" of a Black Hole.

I have formed an entire model based on this and other 'observations'.

See this thread...

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/62807-how-material-came-before-big-bang.html

If you can fight your way through all my explanations.