Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Grains]

I had a another user comment:

 

(FORGIVE ME I DON"T KNOW HOW TO QUOTE SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER THREAD)

 

Science was created as humans became more intelligent and sought ways to describe and understand the world around them. Certain approaches, like religion, posited answers that were not provable, and also often wrong. Those who posited suggestions which could be tested allowed themselves to change and to adapt to new information, and through a reductionist approach, became more skilled at accurately describing the universe. Hence, science was born, and become the more appropriate approach to understanding, learning, and knowledge.

 

Also, since the big bang as presented today sprang both space and time into existence, the concept of "before the big band" is without meaning, since time itself did not yet exist.

 

I then posted :

 

I understand and thank you for clarifying that. But I guess I am just not ok (at least for me) that science just came about after something else happened that proceeded it. So science is the conclusion of something else which cannot be proven. Whatever it might be.

 

Please show evidence.

 

I was then redirected here.

 

So if his statement holds true. Then how does one explain everything before the big bang. I am very interested in this. Pleas provide evidence, proof, examples, etc to tell me what it was like before big bang as I am eager to learn.

[InfiniteNow]

If you limit the conversation to the context of Big Bang theory, then the concept of before the big bang is meaningless, since both space and time are posited to have come into being at that instance.

 

I don't have to support the big bang to explain to you what it posits.

 

 

In case you've missed it the last four times you were told, if the big bang is correct, then there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, so your question is not only irrelevant, but also shows a complete lack of understanding and knowledge on your part.

[C1ay]

Then how does one explain everything before the big bang. I am very interested in this. Pleas provide evidence, proof, examples, etc to tell me what it was like before big bang as I am eager to learn.

 

No one explains anything before the alleged Big Bang. The only true answer for what existed before the Big Bang is "we don't know". We do know that matter cannot be created or destroyed so it likely existed in some form prior to the theorized beginning of our Universe. It would actually be a fair assumption under the laws of nature as we know them to theorize that matter has existed for eternity in one form or another.

 

Right now the Big Bang theory is a leading theory that fits observed data about the universe that exists. That does not mean that it is "the" answer. Science is about looking for "the" answer, an answer which may never be know.

[Grains]

If you limit the conversation to the context of Big Bang theory, then the concept of before the big bang is meaningless, since both space and time are posited to have come into being at that instance.

 

I don't have to support the big bang to explain to you what it posits.

 

 

In case you've missed it the last four times you were told, if the big bang is correct, then there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, so your question is not only irrelevant, but also shows a complete lack of understanding and knowledge on your part.

 

So what do you believe in. If you believe that God does not exist then you all this had to come from something. Please explain theories/examples/proof so I might understand. If it is the big bang please tell me how the big bang occurred from nothing.

[C1ay]

So what do you believe in. If you believe that God does not exist then you all this had to come from something. Please explain theories/examples/proof so I might understand. If it is the big bang please tell me how the big bang occurred from nothing.

 

There is no evidence that there ever was nothing and I'm aware of no claims about what did or did not exist before the supposed Big Bang.

[Moontanman]

So what do you believe in. If you believe that God does not exist then you all this had to come from something. Please explain theories/examples/proof so I might understand. If it is the big bang please tell me how the big bang occurred from nothing.

 

Well there is Membrane theory, Membrane theory does indeed have something to say about where our universe came from before what others call the BB occurred but it is even less explainable than the big bang so it's just an exercise in what if but it's a pretty cool what if

[Grains]

Well there is Membrane theory, Membrane theory does indeed have something to say about where our universe came from before what others call the BB occurred but it is even less explainable than the big bang so it's just an exercise in what if but it's a pretty cool what if

 

Do you have some information on this theory or are their links where I can learn about it (besides google search I am sure you have better ones) I am intrigued. :phones: I like what if's :evil:

[Moontanman]

Do you have some information on this theory or are their links where I can learn about it (besides google search I am sure you have better ones) I am intrigued. :) I like what if's :)

 

Here ya go dude, go for it.....

Cyclic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Grains]

Thank you!

[coldcreation]

Grains, use your branes, not your heart.

 

Jim Colyer, there is no reason to believe the big bang—or the origin of anything observed in the universe—was precipitated by God.

 

 

No one explains anything before the alleged Big Bang. The only true answer for what existed before the Big Bang is "we don't know". We do know that matter cannot be created or destroyed so it likely existed in some form prior to the theorized beginning of our Universe. It would actually be a fair assumption under the laws of nature as we know them to theorize that matter has existed for eternity in one form or another.

 

Right now the Big Bang theory is a leading theory that fits observed data about the universe that exists. That does not mean that it is "the" answer. Science is about looking for "the" answer, an answer which may never be know.

 

...if the big bang is correct, there is no such thing as "before" the big bang

 

Something caused our universe, whether or not it was the collision of two membranes is as good a guess as anything else. Since we can't go there we have no way of verifying it.

 

 

C1ay, InfiniteNow and LittleBang, there are many pre-big bang postulations. But you are correct (in my opinion too), there is no empirical evidence regarding the pre-big bang epoch, so we don't know and chances are may never be know. The pre-big bang theory would be science fiction since it has no experimentally observable consequences.

 

However, those who postulate pre-big bang concepts argue that this is, "in fact," not the case:

Quantum fluctuations are enormously amplified during the pre-Big Bang inflationary phase. Throughout the standard post-Big Bang epoch' date=' these fluctuations generate irregularities in the universe, thus giving rise to a wealth of physical phenomena that today open a window on the pre-Big Bang universe. Among these phenomena are:

 

• stochastic gravitational waves, which could be measurable by the new generation of gravitational wave interferometric (LIGO, VIRGO) as well as resonant (antenna-like) detectors;

 

• cosmic magnetic fields, known to be everywhere in galaxies, but the origin of which is still mysterious;

 

• new, characteristic sources of large-scale structure in the universe, which will be tested through future satellite measurements of cosmic microwave background anisotropy (MAP, PLANCK) or through precise determinations of galaxy and galaxy-cluster distributions;

 

• new kinds of weakly interacting relic, which could provide the long-sought missing (dark matter) component in the energy budget of the universe.[/quote']

 

Source: Challenging the Big Bang: a longer history of time, CERN Courier, page 1, and page 2, where this text came from.

 

In its simplest form' date=' the pre-Big Bang scenario makes definite predictions that may soon be the cause of its downfall. Even so, it would have shown that the most tenacious theoretical dogmas can, and should, be challenged if we want to bring our understanding of the universe as a whole to a level where we can also claim to understand the behaviour of its smallest constituents.[/quote']

 

 

For those who are interested, whether you believe in a pre-big bang or not, here is an updated page of pre-big bang scenarios, with over 270 links (scroll down the list here): THE PRE-BIG BANG SCENARIO, Welcome to the home page of Maurizio Gasperini; Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Bari, Via Amendola 173, 70126 Bari, Italy, and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

 

 

Good day from the land of the bull, football (soccer) and tennis. :phones:

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Littlebang said

 

Pluto, none of the people who support the BB have ever said the BB is guaranteed but only that most of the observed data implies a beginning.

 

Please show me the observed data that supports the BBT and implies a start throughout the universe.

 

and if possible explain to me how matter recycles.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land down under

 

Can I ask for an opinion on these papers. I tried to edit the last post and add the info,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but something funny happened.

 

 

[0802.1634] Bouncing Cosmologies

Bouncing Cosmologies

 

Authors: M. Novello, S.E.Perez Bergliaffa

(Submitted on 12 Feb 2008)

 

Abstract: We review the general features of nonsingular universes ({em i.e.} those that go from an era of accelerated collapse to an expanding era without displaying a singularity) as well as cyclic universes. We discuss the mechanisms behind the bounce, and analyze examples of solutions that implement these mechanisms. Observational consequences of such regular cosmologies are also considered, with emphasis in the behavior of the perturbations.

 

[0802.1875] Cyclic Magnetic Universe

Cyclic Magnetic Universe

 

Authors: M. Novello, Aline N. Araujo, J. M. Salim

(Submitted on 13 Feb 2008)

 

Abstract: Recent works have shown the important role Nonlinear Electrodynamics (NLED) can have in two crucial questions of Cosmology, concerning particular moments of its evolution for very large and for low-curvature regimes, that is for very condensed phase and at the present period of acceleration. We present here a toy model of a complete cosmological scenario in which the main factor responsible for the geometry is a nonlinear magnetic field which produces a FRW homogeneous and isotropic geometry. In this scenario we distinguish four distinct phases: a bouncing period, a radiation era, an acceleration era and a re-bouncing. It has already been shown that in NLED a strong magnetic field can overcome the inevitability of a singular region typical of linear Maxwell theory; on the other extreme situation, that is for very weak magnetic field it can accelerate the expansion. The present model goes one step further: after the acceleration phase the universe re-bounces and enter in a collapse era. This behavior is a manifestation of the invariance under the dual map of the scale factor $ a(t) to 1/ a(t),$ a consequence of the corresponding inverse symmetry of the electromagnetic field ($ F to 1/ F,$ where equiv F^{munu}F_{munu}$) of the NLED theory presented here. Such sequence collapse-bouncing-expansion-acceleration-re-bouncing-collapse constitutes a basic unitary element for the structure of the universe that can be repeated indefinitely yielding what we call a Cyclic Magnetic Universe.

[Majeston]

 

Edit: Only Einstein was able to direct cosmic religious means to ends that were both his and attuned to both religious and scientific conviction; and he, as everyone knows, stood apart. Perhaps the most telling indication was Einstein’s inclination to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists and for very obvious reasons.

 

“The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events.” In a 1939 address at Princeton Einstein advocated; “science can only ascertain what is, not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kind remain necessary. Religion on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts” (Einstein, 1954, 1982, pp. 41-49).

 

 

CC

 

 

I am at a loss to understand why Einstein is used here as some high authority on Religion. I can understand that Albert was somewhat limited in his understanding of the roles of religion and science due to what was available to him for consumption at the time he lived, but I see no reason to afford him any more weight on the subject than I would give a brain surgeon who offers me his opinion on which tie goes better with the blue pin-striped suit.

[coldcreation]

I am at a loss to understand why Einstein is used here as some high authority on Religion. I can understand that Albert was somewhat limited in his understanding of the roles of religion and science due to what was available to him for consumption at the time he lived, but I see no reason to afford him any more weight on the subject than I would give a brain surgeon who offers me his opinion on which tie goes better with the blue pin-striped suit.

 

You seem to have misunderstood the point. Einstein is speaking about science (as opposed to "evaluations of human thought and action"). He is not pretending to be an expert theologue.

 

 

This is the Astronomy and Cosmology section of Hypography, and it is a thread about the origin of the universe (whether there was an initial big bang or not). So to insert your (or anyone elses) pet Dios into the discussion is out of line, i.e., IT has nothing to do with science (except maybe for psychology). I didn't open your link, so I don't know for a fact that you are arguing for Him or not. Correct me if my assumption is wrong.

 

The controversy between theology and science is not a new one. It was brewing during the era of classical antiquity, en passant par Einstein's epoch, and is still alive-and-kicking today. There is nothing new now that had not already surfaced when Einstein addressed Princeton (1939), except that the Pope Pius XII accepted the big bang as the origin of the universe (circa 1952). So your claim that the roles of religion and science available to Einstein at the time have somehow changed is erroneous. Science is still based on empirical evidence. Religion is still based on dogma. In other words, Einstein was correct in his assessment of the issue.

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

 

Coldcreation said

 

Science is still based on empirical evidence. Religion is still based on dogma. In other words, Einstein was correct in his assessment of the issue.

 

Einstein represents greatness and because of this many dare not question his thinking.

 

The problem I see is that we have Science Religion that incorporates both empirical and dogma in some fields.

 

Science religion has influenced in some cases schools, politics and cash flow to projects.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

 

I have been posting links on the recycling theory. If I'm off track by posting these links, can someone let me know.

 

and yet another

 

[astro-ph/0204479] The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction

The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction

[REASON]

My understanding is that this theory has been abandoned since it was discovered that universal expansion is "speeding up" instead of decelerating.