What happened before the Big Bang?

[NightmarE D]

God ate something he shouldn't have

God got some gas

God farted

*Big Bang*

Here we are now. Years and years later. Talking about it on Neowin and this time God got some Beano to help his problem.

Sorry couldn't resist. Continue on with the serious posts.

[JEN2]

God ate something he shouldn't have

God got some gas

God farted

*Big Bang*

Here we are now. Years and years later. Talking about it on Neowin and this time God got some Beano to help his problem.

Sorry couldn't resist. Continue on with the serious posts.

Very intellectual! Well done.

[NightmarE D]

Very intellectual! Well done.

I took Hooked on Phonics for two years....and it helped

:shiftyninja:

No seriously. Continue on with the posts. I enjoy reading everyones theories on it seeing how I have none of my own :laugh:

[vincent]

God.

"He" always existed. As a matter of fact God is beyond time, time exists inside of God, God is the 5th Dimension, which is existence itself.

That's a pretty bold caim. how do you propose to demonstrate this?

[JEN2]

That's a pretty bold caim. how do you propose to demonstrate this?

The same way you would demonstrate to someone that "wind" exists. You cannot see it, but you can feel it, you can see the wind affecting objects, but you cannot see actual "wind". You can say a similar thing about god. However, if the person listening does not want to believe, there is nothing you can say to them to prove that "wind" or "god" exist.

Simple. :D

But is this topic about god or "what happened before the big bang?"

[vincent]

"what happened before the big bang?"

Is a question that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Now, if we're postulating what caused the Big Bang then maybe, an answer can be given.

[Captain_Wang]

The same way you would demonstrate to someone that "wind" exists. You cannot see it, but you can feel it, you can see the wind affecting objects, but you cannot see actual "wind". You can say a similar thing about god. However, if the person listening does not want to believe, there is nothing you can say to them to prove that "wind" or "god" exist.

Simple. :D

But is this topic about god or "what happened before the big bang?"

We can prove wind exists no problem, there's no experiment to prove the divine, that would rely on interpretation.

Edited November 13, 2006 by mashw

[JEN2]

"what happened before the big bang?"

Is a question that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Now, if we're postulating what caused the Big Bang then maybe, an answer can be given.

Most likey people would say, things got a bit dense, certain gases reacted, and "big bang".

But what about the question before that? Where did the laws "of physics" come from before the big bang, as you need those. They are an important ingrediant to cause a bang... Also, where did these dense gases come from?

I mean, think about it, how can something explode where there are no laws "of physics"?

They could not have come from no where, you cannot get something from "true nothingness". When i say "nothingnes" i mean completely nothing, i.e. not even darkness and silence because darkness and silence is something!

We can prove wind exists no problem.

Are you serious? You cannot SEE wind in those pictures, you can only see the dirt or particals the wind is affecting!!

Edited November 13, 2006 by JEN2

[Captain_Wang]

Well done. I said we can prove wind exists..."!!"

[vincent]

Most likey people would say, things got a bit dense, certain gases reacted, and "big bang".

But what about the question before that? Where did the laws "of physics" come from before the big bang, as you need those. They are an important ingrediant to cause a bang... Also, where did these dense gases come from?

I mean, think about it, how can something explode where there are no laws "of physics"?

They could not have come from no where, you cannot get something from "true nothingness". When i say "nothingnes" i mean completely nothing, i.e. not even darkness and silence because darkness and silence is something!

Noone knows what happened to cause the Big Bang, no theoretical frameworks haven't been affectively constructed (at least, not that i know of) All we know is that the further you windback the clock, the smaller and denser space-time gets. this we can be sure of based on observational and experimental evidence.

[JEN2]

Well done. I said we can prove wind exists..."!!"

FINALLY!

I mean I could have gone on for ages and ages saying, there is no such thing as wind because I can not see it, i just see dirt flying around, and that does not mean its wind.

But I know wind exists so I dont need to go down that road.

Its the same with god. The people who believe in god can see how he affects the world, similar to how the average person can see the wind affecting the world.

I mean, I can just post a picture of nature i.e. a tree and say, "look, proof that god exists, look at how amazing and complex the system is that the tree produces oxygen for us to breath and it takes in what we breath out, an amazing cycle".

Noone knows what happened to cause the Big Bang, no theoretical frameworks haven't been affectively constructed (at least, not that i know of) All we know is that the further you windback the clock, the smaller and denser space-time gets. this we can be sure of based on observational and experimental evidence.

The quantum physics scientists would say otherwise. They say that big bangs happen when parallal universes collide with one another.

Its a more plausable theory than "nothingness" before the big bang. its really interesting stuff, not that i agree with it or anything like that, i just find it facsinating. :)

[vincent]

The quantum physics scientists would say otherwise. They say that big bangs happen when parallal universes collide with one another.

Its a more plausable theory than "nothingness" before the big bang. its really interesting stuff, not that i agree with it or anything like that, i just find it facsinating. :)

No, that is string theory. Which only theoretical through mathematics. I'll just repost my rebuttal to string theory:

It is yet has to posses the capability of being tested. I still won't call it a legit theory until it actually qualifies by coming up with unique predictions akin to metaphysics and dharmic religions, though. Slapping on additional vectors and a planck-space limitation is math, not metaphysics. No offense. Slapshod limitations on the basis of oscillating quanta (these "strings") defined as individual vectors and needing multiple vectors to fill in the definitions to reality, wouldn't exactly make any man of science who was a stickler for testability all that pleased. Again, string theory lacks any unique predictions. Einstein's approach to science was far more stringent. Which is why his relativity actually counts as a theory, and has had more instant impact than any other, and has gone through less change than any other.

[Captain_Wang]

FINALLY!

I mean I could have gone on for ages and ages saying, there is no such thing as wind because I can not see it, i just see dirt flying around, and that does not mean its wind.

But I know wind exists so I dont need to go down that road.

Its the same with god. The people who believe in god can see how he affects the world, similar to how the average person can see the wind affecting the world.

I mean, I can just post a picture of nature i.e. a tree and say, "look, proof that god exists, look at how amazing and complex the system is that the tree produces oxygen for us to breath and it takes in what we breath out, an amazing cycle".

And I'd say the fact we're here right now is because that cycle happened to be mutually productive for our species, if it wasn't then we wouldn't exist. The romantic aspect is added by you, not nature, because she's a ruthless s.o.b.

P.S I wasn't agreeing with you if you think I was. Comparing wind to God does not work. As a species we saw a direct effect on our exterior world by a force that we now know is caused by solar heating and planetary rotation etc, and decided to call it 'the wind'. It's as simple as that, there is no esoteric connection I'm afraid.

[JEN2]

No, that is string theory. Which only theoretical through mathematics. I'll just repost my rebuttal to string theory:

It is yet has to posses the capability of being tested. I still won't call it a legit theory until it actually qualifies by coming up with unique predictions akin to metaphysics and dharmic religions, though. Slapping on additional vectors and a planck-space limitation is math, not metaphysics. No offense. Slapshod limitations on the basis of oscillating quanta (these "strings") defined as individual vectors and needing multiple vectors to fill in the definitions to reality, wouldn't exactly make any man of science who was a stickler for testability all that pleased. Again, string theory lacks any unique predictions. Einstein's approach to science was far more stringent. Which is why his relativity actually counts as a theory, and has had more instant impact than any other, and has gone through less change than any other.

I did quantum mechanics at university and its all about parallel universies/dimensions. I have read about the string theory also. Its good stuff!

And I'd say the fact we're here right now is because that cycle happened to be mutually productive for our species, if it wasn't then we wouldn't exist. The romantic aspect is added by you, not nature, because she's a ruthless s.o.b.

P.S I wasn't agreeing with you if you think I was. Comparing wind to God does not work. As a species we saw a direct effect on our exterior world by a force that we now know is caused by solar heating and planetary rotation etc, and decided to call it 'the wind'. It's as simple as that, there is no esoteric connection I'm afraid.

ok fair enough, but that does not explain where the laws came from before the big bang which would allow the big bang to take place in the first place. and as far as I am concerned, there is only one way to explain it, because something cannot come from true nothingness for no apparent reason.

There has to be an environment which has the appropriate chemicals/gases/laws before the bang can happen. where did that environment come from, how did it get there, why did it get there. The only explanation is "god".

Even one of the greatest minds in the world (einstein) said that the universe cannot be a fluke and that the design is too amazing/beautiful.

[vincent]

I did quantum mechanics at university and its all about parallel universies/dimensions. I have read about the string theory also. Its good stuff!

I'd love to see a source for Quantum Mechanics supporting Parallel universes, as far as i know this is the whoring of string theory done by Brian Greene. Or at least you yourself can demonstrate how one is able to derive such a concept using soley QM.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The ones who say "there was nothing before the big bang" I personnally think they are VERY wrong. Let me explain:

1. to create a bang you need chemicals and/or gasses

2. for an explosion to occur, you need laws, some people like to call them the laws "of physics"

If you do not have these 2 things, there can be no "bang"

Now the question is, where did these gasses and laws "of physics" come from before the "big bang"?

To create a convention bang you may need chemicals and/or gasses. The universal big bang occurred before matter, before elements, before atoms.

Remember that under the ideal conditions matter can be completely converted into energy (using E = mc2). It is likely that during the big bang the opposite occurred.

What happened before the Big Bang may be irrelevant as time may not have existed.

[remix17]

God.

"He" always existed. As a matter of fact God is beyond time, time exists inside of God, God is the 5th Dimension, which is existence itself.

Do you mind? We're trying to have an intelligent discussion here... about things you'll never try to comprehend.

Anyway I think the timer loop logic is the best explanation. Because the question itself is not totally clear. "Before" implies a time reference and as far as I can see time did not exist before Big Bang.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I'd love to see a source for Quantum Mechanics supporting Parallel universes, as far as i know this is the whoring of string theory done by Brian Greene. Or at least you yourself can demonstrate how one is able to derive such a concept using soley QM.

There is an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that states that all possibilities happen in parallel universes. It is such that you cannot say with certainly what path an electron will take but rather you can only predict its path. This is the reason that Einstein hated QM because he said that "God does not play dice with the universe".

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

[em3]

What happened before the Big Bang may be irrelevant as time may not have existed.

Time has and will always exist. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a big bang. It's like pressing pause in a movie. If you do that the movie will freeze and nothing will happen until you press pause again. If you press pause before the big bang... ... you get the point. :p

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Time has and will always exist. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a big bang. It's like pressing pause in a movie. If you do that the movie will freeze and nothing will happen until you press pause again. If you press pause before the big bang... ... you get the point. :p

Perhaps, we have a very limited perspective on time.

[vincent]

It is a tenet of Quantum Mechanics that all possibilities happen in parallel universes. It is such that you cannot say with certainly what path an electron will take but rather you can only predict its path. This is the reason that Einstein hated QM because he said that "God does not play dice with the universe".

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

An electron's velocity & position cannot be measured simultanously, that's quite correct. Schrodinger's famous cat 'thought' experiment, was constructed to explain the fallaciousness in such reasoning (which he couldn't come to terms with as well) in which it explains that the cat ( or in this case, the electron ) can be in a "superposition" that is neither in velocity (momentum) or position ( dead cat, or living cat ). I don't see the correlation to a parallel universe using this, perhaps i might need further studying up on the weird but attractive world of QM. :D

[Hurmoth]

Time has and will always exist.

That depends on who ask. If you're a Christian and you don't believe in the "Big Bang" then time, at some point, didn't exist. But there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove that time never existed, this is one of those things you believe by faith if you're a Christian.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

An electron's velocity & position cannot be measured simultanously, that's quite correct. Schrondinger's famous cat thought experiment, was constructed to explain the fallaciousness in such reasoning ( which he failed to do) in which it explains that the cat ( or in this case, the electron ) can the in a "superposition" that is neither in velocity (momentum) or position ( dead cat, or living cat ). I don't see the correlation to a parallel universe using this, perhaps i might need further studying up on the weird but attractive world of QM. :D

I edited my post (it was one of those talk first, research later type of deals).

I have read Richard Greene's book so that may have warped my understanding somewhat.

Obviously we are talking about the uncertainly principle and the wave-particle duality problem.

Light acts as both a wave and a particle which is why it produces interference patterns using a dual-slit filter.

The interference pattern is created by photons interacting with each other and yet, if you could release one photon at a time it would interact with itself and still produce the interference pattern. Now clearly, it should not be able to interfere with itself thus making some people believe that all possible paths are taken before the actual path is chosen. All of those other possible paths happen in parallel universes.

That depends on who ask. If you're a Christian and you don't believe in the "Big Bang" then time, at some point, didn't exist. But there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove that time never existed, this is one of those things you believe by faith if you're a Christian.

The same is true of the majority of Christians who do accept the big bang (Catholics, Anglicans and most non-evangelical protestants).

[vincent]

I edited my post (it was one of those talk first, research later type of deals).

I have read Richard Greene's book so that may have warped my understanding somewhat.

Obviously we are talking about the uncertainly principle and the wave-particle duality problem.

Light acts as both a wave and a particle which is why it produces interference patterns using a dual-slit filter.

The interference pattern is created by photons interacting with each other and yet, if you could release one photon at a time it would interact with itself and still produce the interference pattern. No clearly, it should not be able to interfere with itself thus making some people believe that all possible paths are taken before the actual path is chosen. All of those other possible paths happen in parallel universes.

The same is true of the majority of Christians who do accept the big bang (Catholics, Anglicans and most non-evangelical protestants).

That is the speculation, and yes you're right. And this is where string theory picks up on. But there isn't a way to test this, to confirm it. Which is why i'm not buying into ST too much,

Edited November 13, 2006 by ripgut

[remix17]

Time has and will always exist. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a big bang. It's like pressing pause in a movie. If you do that the movie will freeze and nothing will happen until you press pause again. If you press pause before the big bang... ... you get the point. :p

I don't think you have a very good understand of time. Time is not linear as classical view states. It is a relative measurement. I tend to agree that time is measure of entropy of the universe. Before big bang the entropy was zero, hence time did not exist or rather it was not ticking yet.