Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
what was there
what was there before the big bang. probably the most mind podering question of all time. any theories for this one
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by PLIVELY34. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nooo!
The big bang was not a huge explosion into empty space.
The big bang was the creation of space and time itself.
Sorry if that's hard to get your head around but there it is.
The question what was before does not make sense because time starts at that point. Our very language has concepts of time (verbs) built right into it so trying to discuss this in natural human language is doomed to failure.
The big bang was not a huge explosion into empty space.
The big bang was the creation of space and time itself.
Sorry if that's hard to get your head around but there it is.
The question what was before does not make sense because time starts at that point. Our very language has concepts of time (verbs) built right into it so trying to discuss this in natural human language is doomed to failure.
Oooh... I never knew that Jake.
Tis difficult.
But presuming there are other universes and things out there as I've seen discussed out here could we not have come from one of those? I rather liked my plannets and stars doing the floaty thing.
Sigh... I can see what you mean now about discussing this in human language. It's like trying to think of nothing.
Tis difficult.
But presuming there are other universes and things out there as I've seen discussed out here could we not have come from one of those? I rather liked my plannets and stars doing the floaty thing.
Sigh... I can see what you mean now about discussing this in human language. It's like trying to think of nothing.
-- answer removed --
The other universes thing is interesting.
It comes about from two or three angles
Firstly there are some interpretations of Quantum mechanics that work nicely if you consider multiple Universes - but there are other ways too - it's not needed.
It's a nice answer to the problem of why certain things like the strength of Gravity or the charge on an electron seen just right for us to be here - maybe they are different in other Universes.
They are possible answers to paradoxes regarding time travel - So far nothing we know of actually rules out backward time travel
However whether the concept of other Universes is actually Science is debatable - if you can't measure it or directly imply it's existance, it's not true science in my book.
It's just one of those things that theorhetical physicists play around with when they don't think any experimentalists are listening
It comes about from two or three angles
Firstly there are some interpretations of Quantum mechanics that work nicely if you consider multiple Universes - but there are other ways too - it's not needed.
It's a nice answer to the problem of why certain things like the strength of Gravity or the charge on an electron seen just right for us to be here - maybe they are different in other Universes.
They are possible answers to paradoxes regarding time travel - So far nothing we know of actually rules out backward time travel
However whether the concept of other Universes is actually Science is debatable - if you can't measure it or directly imply it's existance, it's not true science in my book.
It's just one of those things that theorhetical physicists play around with when they don't think any experimentalists are listening
Jake's answer is thoughtful, as usual... the problem with the multi-verse theory is that the physicists state that it can never be tested... hence, as Jake alludes, it'snot really a theory at all. Along with the referenced theory are the mathmatical (at quantum levels) predictions of several dimensions inherent in the Big Bang that, for whatever reason did not develop... More than four time-space dimensions? Think of this... a point, such as a period on a page, is actually a line that is unfolded, the line is an angle that is similarily unfolded and the angle could be a triangle or even a cube that is equally unfolded. So... to the theoretical physicist, a dot or point has the potential of being only a part of a different dimension. When time measurements become less than Planck Time all bets are off... so to speak...
-- answer removed --
I think in a sense Clanad you may be falling prey to the same error as Plivey.
If time is quantised around the plank time then to talk about time smaller than that (even to say all bets are off) is as meaningless as talking about before the big bang - but maybe you're aware of that, I can't really tell from your answer.
I'd also be a little more circumspect about saying that the multivers theory can never be tested. It's certainly very challenging and beyond us now but I don't think Einstein ever thought the EPR paradox could be tested and Rutherford certainly thought nobody could get usable atomic power.
Don't get me wrong I'm not talking about moving anything as large as a human between possible universes or actual people travelling in time - but imagine if we could create micro-black holes - far beyond us now but not inconceivable.
Such objects could offer just the tools to probe how space and time are actually put together.
If anybodys interested in time travel there is an online lecture here: http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/61 by Professor Paul Davies who's a real expert on the subject. The vast majority of it is pretty accessible with very little mathematics.
If time is quantised around the plank time then to talk about time smaller than that (even to say all bets are off) is as meaningless as talking about before the big bang - but maybe you're aware of that, I can't really tell from your answer.
I'd also be a little more circumspect about saying that the multivers theory can never be tested. It's certainly very challenging and beyond us now but I don't think Einstein ever thought the EPR paradox could be tested and Rutherford certainly thought nobody could get usable atomic power.
Don't get me wrong I'm not talking about moving anything as large as a human between possible universes or actual people travelling in time - but imagine if we could create micro-black holes - far beyond us now but not inconceivable.
Such objects could offer just the tools to probe how space and time are actually put together.
If anybodys interested in time travel there is an online lecture here: http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/61 by Professor Paul Davies who's a real expert on the subject. The vast majority of it is pretty accessible with very little mathematics.
Well the way I see it,
There can't be a 'before' the big bang.
Because this is concidering that it has been placed on a time line or scale. This would be impossible because 'time' itself apparantly started at the big bang so this would be the start of the so called 'time line'.
However, this brings up the question "What is time?"
As 'time' is a man made measurement it woudn't exist if humans had never existed, which is due to the big bang anyway..
As the big bang created 'everything' this would mean that anything 'before' the big bang would fill the definition of litterally 'nothing' which is hard for people to imagine because nobody has ever actually experianced a 'nothing' as there has always been something.. Hmm..
It is something very hard to get your head around and I'm not trying to sound like any sort of an expert on this subject as I'm not even out of high school yet, and have completed a grand total of one gcse at the current time. But anyway that is how I look at that question. :)
There can't be a 'before' the big bang.
Because this is concidering that it has been placed on a time line or scale. This would be impossible because 'time' itself apparantly started at the big bang so this would be the start of the so called 'time line'.
However, this brings up the question "What is time?"
As 'time' is a man made measurement it woudn't exist if humans had never existed, which is due to the big bang anyway..
As the big bang created 'everything' this would mean that anything 'before' the big bang would fill the definition of litterally 'nothing' which is hard for people to imagine because nobody has ever actually experianced a 'nothing' as there has always been something.. Hmm..
It is something very hard to get your head around and I'm not trying to sound like any sort of an expert on this subject as I'm not even out of high school yet, and have completed a grand total of one gcse at the current time. But anyway that is how I look at that question. :)
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
