mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
The Big Bang Theory Options
Elysium
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16:18 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/15/2014
Posts: 16
Neurons: 4,733
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
This may seem completely implausible, but here I go....
So I think that the Universe was created by the Big Bang. It will expand for an unimaginable period of time that our puny (but complicated) human brains can process. Then the Universe will probably stop expanding and expand inwards until it is nothing...then the Big Bang, then another Universe is born, one with probably completely different physics, different planets, etc.
Any opinions on this? Think
Dean Bekken
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:30:57 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/23/2014
Posts: 15
Neurons: 3,460
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
"Opinions"!!
quixsilver
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:28:28 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/21/2014
Posts: 21
Neurons: 419,747
Location: Tucson, Arizona, United States
Yo, Elysium. Depends who you ask. A few centuries back, you would have had a lot at stake riding on the answer to such a burning question, if you get my drift. The crazies are still out there, but now not allowed to play with matches. What a gilded age we live in!

To the question: The Big Bang, as it relates to what already happened, is pretty much accepted fact by now, at least among scientists looking to pertinent scientific evidence. What comes next, though, is an open question, rife with theory. Scientific consensus seesaws every so often on the odds of "Big Freeze" or "Big Crunch," (the third option, a "Big Nothing" equilibrium point where the universe holds its breath, poised like a ball balancing on the point of a pyramid, seems highly unlikely.) A while back, the evidence seemed to favor expansion into the mother of all Ice Ages, but scientists are beginning to see, with all the dark "stuff" (dark matter, dark energy) coming to light, that the universe's pulled a hat trick on us, so I wouldn't put any money on any outcome just yet. Seems science (physics, at any rate,) is back to ABCs on this one.
Elvandil
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:35:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/5/2014
Posts: 340
Neurons: 153,179
Location: East Montpelier, Vermont, United States
Elysium wrote:
This may seem completely implausible, but here I go....
So I think that the Universe was created by the Big Bang. It will expand for an unimaginable period of time that our puny (but complicated) human brains can process. Then the Universe will probably stop expanding and expand inwards until it is nothing...then the Big Bang, then another Universe is born, one with probably completely different physics, different planets, etc.
Any opinions on this? Think


That cyclical view has been a common one throughout history. Recurring, periodic events are seen clearly by primitive societies in the seasons and the passage of the Sun and planets. But the discovery that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate calls that possibility into question.

At present, there is nothing known that can stop or slow the expansion. It will continue for a huge period of time. Eventually, time itself will end and no longer "pass" since the energy of the universe will be so dispersed and homogeneous that no "events" will then be possible. Entropy (and therefore, information) will become infinite.

(Time, after all, like color, does not really exist. Both are epiphenomena, emergent from the complexity from which they arise. Our perceptions see this complexity as a perceivable and conceivable thing. But if someone told you that they had a pocket full of color or time, you would know that they were crazy. Time came into existence with the Big Bang, an explosion OF time and space and not as many people view it, an explosion INTO space, possibly energized by a collision of branes. So there was no time "before" the Big Bang and asking what happened before is a false question.)


These things are very difficult to discuss in English, but far easier in Chinese. Chinese verbs have no tense, so problems of past, present, and future are eliminated in a discussion of a timeless universe.
unfeigned
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:44:06 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 9/18/2014
Posts: 8
Neurons: 40,440
Location: Bangalore, Karnataka, India
the big bang theory is magic theory for every one except the postulator
Elysium
Posted: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:32:37 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/15/2014
Posts: 16
Neurons: 4,733
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's very hard to imagine just absolutely nothing. No air, no oxygen, no molecules, no bacteria, nothing. I wonder what colour it would be.
leonAzul
Posted: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:17:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,156
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
unfeigned wrote:
the big bang theory is magic theory for every one except the postulator


The label "Big Bang" was given as a satirical joke by a colleague critical of Hubble's law of cosmic expansion. The development of that law was based on careful observation and measurement, not magic, and its description and predictive power has been repeatedly demonstrated to be accurate.

If time were perfectly reversible, it would be logical to conclude that a constantly expanding universe must have been smaller in the past, and one could imagine starting and ending points.

The evidence so far is otherwise: things have always been transforming as far back as we can tell. Infinity is like that; it has no end.

Elvandil
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:27:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/5/2014
Posts: 340
Neurons: 153,179
Location: East Montpelier, Vermont, United States
Elysium wrote:
It's very hard to imagine just absolutely nothing. No air, no oxygen, no molecules, no bacteria, nothing. I wonder what colour it would be.


It is hard to imagine because there can be no such thing. There is no region of space, at any order of magnitude, that is empty.

In fact, our concepts and perceptions of space and mass may be incorrect, too. New relationalist theories based on affine geometries that attempt to fix errors in Einstein's relativity indicate that there is nothing but mass. Space, so far as it exists, is our perception of relations between masses. As Kant so presciently claimed, it may be nothing more than a category of mind. In those theories, matter and space are all one, continuous, selfsame thing and you can't even have one without the other.

Of course, there is nothing in the universe that is "infinite". The entire concept is ridiculous and speaks more to our ignorance than anything else. The infinities that arise in relativity, for example, are faults in the theory. It is a classical theory and does not consider the quantum nature of the real world. Its "infinities" are due to divisions by zero, something even the oldest computers balked at, and also something that mathematicians know is not infinity, but undefined.

(Of course, there would be no color, either, because if there were nothing, there would be no perceiver to see color. Color does not exist unless someone is seeing it.)


Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 6:52:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,293
Neurons: 166,696
Elvandil wrote:
(Nothing) is hard to imagine because there can be no such thing. There is no region of space, at any order of magnitude, that is empty.


Hello Elvandil and welcome to the forum. I have spent some time wrestling with the concept of nothing in the past, it is a curious matter, and one that I think has developmental value to one's mentality.

One of the interesting conclusions I came to is, nothing is not hard to imagine, it is impossible to imagine. It seems to me that to imagine something, (a problem already as I just called nothing, something), we build a conceptual model of it in our head, how can you build a concept that isn't?

I agree that nothing, is impossible within this universe, even if you were to manage to achieve a perfectly empty volume of space, you would still have space, and space is something. To my limited understanding even an absolute empty piece of space still contains energy. Energy without which that space would collapse. (Whatever that means.) I may be entirely wrong about that, I came to this understanding a long time ago, and it is entirely outside of my primary field of interest.


I don't think I've ever heard the notion that infinity is impossible before, and although I am aware that time is an artificial construct, would it stopping actually negate infinity? I mean,(at least I think I do, this is uncharted territory for me), in order for the universe to stop expanding/contracting, would it not have to be homogenous throughout? If it were homogenous throughout, there could not be anything within it that was traveling, would that not make it endless by default?
Okay that may be just plain silly, but it's early.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:35:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,588
Neurons: 230,637
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hello!

Elvandil made a good point in saying that English does not really have the words - I would guess that, really, Chinese does not have them either (though tenseless verbs may bring it a bit closer).

I agree with most of the earlier 'posters' - it is basically impossible (in terms of our own universe and experience)to conceive of nothing.

'Empty space' - as in the space between planets - OK, that's conceivable, because it actually contains the planets at the boundaries, it contains energies of various sorts.

Real nothing is nothing. That's really the only positive thing you can say about it.

It does not contain any matter. It doesn't contain any energy.
Since space is measured as a distance between 'somethings', nothing contains no space and does not take up any space.
Since time is related to movement of 'somethings', nothing does not have time, either.

Nothing cannot exist in this space/time continuum, if it does not occupy space or move through time.

Elysium asks what colour it would be - obviously, it would be a sort of greeny-orange with shades of yellow and indigo! d'oh!

****************
One can (if one knows enough physics and maths, which I don't) 'extrapolate' back and mock up a 'theoretical model' of what existed an instant after 'something', I believe the theorists when they say that it would appear to be a suddenly appearing point-source, which then expanded rapidly. It might be true.

It's also possible that, like a star which explodes to become a super-giant then slowly contracts again to become a dwarf or a neutron star, the universe may stop expanding at some point and start falling inwards.

However, the 'theoretical model' stops at that point.
Trying to go earlier becomes an exercise in dividing zero by zero - so 'what occurred just before' isn't answerable by maths or physics.

Maybe someone (who exists outside of time and space) decided 'Let there be light!' and there was light.


Litvinenko
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:17:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/17/2012
Posts: 185
Neurons: 856
“And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.” (Quran 51:47)

At the time of the revelation of the Quran, the word “space” was not known, and people used the word “heaven” to refer to what lies above the Earth. In the above verse, the word “heaven” is referring to space and the known universe. The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states.

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)


Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.