29 Oct 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe question "What was before the BigBang occurred?" is about the same kind of question as "What is inside a black hole?".
Currently mankind lacks the empirical and theoretical tools to look far enough back in time to see what happened. So "we don't know" is the best answer to the question of what was "before" the Big Bang, if such a question makes sense at all.
In both cases we cannot observe anything, we cannot do any experiments.
But we know more and more about the black hole's interior. So I'm convinced that we can learn more and more about what was happening before BigBang too. The future will tell if I'm right on this.
One answer could be "There was nothing before BigBang." And perhaps one day we can prove it. My feeling is that there is something more than that.
We haven't come to an end in String Theory, nor the Quantum Gravitation theory. I think the answer is out there somewhere.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas…we can learn more and more about what was happening before Big Bang too... .….
The question "What was before the BigBang occurred?" is about the same kind of question as "What is inside a black hole?".
In both cases we cannot observe anything, we cannot do any experiments.
But we know more and more about the black hole's interior. So I'm convinced that we can learn more and more about what was happening before BigBang too. The f ...[text shortened]... Theory, nor the Quantum Gravitation theory. I think the answer is out there somewhere.
This is assuming there was a “before” the big bang -according to the main-stream big bang theory, there wasn’t.
There is plenty of evidence supporting the big bang theory and there are actual reasons for physicists to believe that time started then (partly to do with the way space and time are inseparable). Have you got any rational premise for believing that the main-stream big bang theory is wrong or that there must be a “before” the big bang?
29 Oct 08
3 edits
The question "What was before the BigBang occurred?" is about the same kind of question as "What is inside a black hole?".Of course we will be able to learn more as our empirical and theoretical tools develop, I'm just saying we don't know currently.
In both cases we cannot observe anything, we cannot do any experiments.
But we know more and more about the black hole's interior. So I'm convinced that we can learn more and more about what was happening before BigBang too. The future will tell if I'm right on this.
On ...[text shortened]... ing Theory, nor the Quantum Gravitation theory. I think the answer is out there somewhere.
It's impossible to prove any empirical fact so if you want proof there was nothing before the Big Bang you'll be disappointed.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't believe in a singularity state of the universe. If a singularity point is infinitly small with an infinit density of matter and/or energy, then I think it is a simplification. In a singularity like this, the unification of quantum theory and relativity is impossible.
[b]…we can learn more and more about what was happening before Big Bang too... .….
This is assuming there was a “before” the big bang -according to the main-stream big bang theory, there wasn’t.
There is plenty of evidence supporting the big bang theory and there are actual reasons for physicists to believe that time started then (partly to ...[text shortened]... ing that the main-stream big bang theory is wrong or that there must be a “before” the big bang?[/b]
Lately, more and more articles in scientific magazines are speculating of a 'PreBangian' universe. So things are about to be seriously discussed.
My opinion (nothing more) is that our universe is an event inside a larger kind of universe. Talking about time and space in this larger universe is not enough. We need a higher understanding of time and space before we can begin to understand a larger universe than ours.
29 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI should have said this earlier and I apologise for not doing so but I am using the word “singularity” here rather loosely to just mean a very tiny dense particle but not necessarily one that is strictly a “singularity” in the sense that it is “infinitely” small and I have no opinion on whether or not such a “true” singularity actually existed at the start -I only think there was a very “tiny” dense particle but have no opinion on whether or not it was “infinitely tiny” although I think it would be harder to understand if there was a true singularity back then because this would appear to be inconsistent with the physical concept of Plank’s length:
I don't believe in a singularity state of the universe. If a singularity point is infinitly small with an infinit density of matter and/or energy, then I think it is a simplification. In a singularity like this, the unification of quantum theory and relativity is impossible.
Lately, more and more articles in scientific magazines are speculating of a 'P nderstanding of time and space before we can begin to understand a larger universe than ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
But, having said that, why should the universe not be hard for us to understand?
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm openminded here. I don't say for sure that "There is no before BigBang", neither do I say for sure that "Universe started from something earlier".
I should have said this earlier and I apologise for not doing so but I am using the word “singularity” here rather loosely to just mean a very tiny dense particle but not necessarily one that is strictly a “singularity” in the sense that it is “infinitely” small and I have no opinion on whether or not such a “true” singularity actually existed at th ...[text shortened]... was a very “tiny” dense particle but have no opinion on whether or not it was “infinitely tiny”.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt could be both, like an electron is a point particle and infinitely small, yet extended out in space due to its wave character. But since there is no quantum theory of gravity, it's hard to tell.
I should have said this earlier and I apologise for not doing so but I am using the word “singularity” here rather loosely to just mean a very tiny dense particle but not necessarily one that is strictly a “singularity” in the sense that it is “infinitely” small and I have no opinion on whether or not such a “true” singularity actually existed at th ...[text shortened]... tent with the physical concept of Plank’s length:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorra…It could be both, like an electron is a point particle and infinitely small, yet extended out in space due to its wave character. ..…
It could be both, like an electron is a point particle and infinitely small, yet extended out in space due to its wave character. But since there is no quantum theory of gravity, it's hard to tell.
Good point.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIs the size of the space larger than the size of the particle?
[b]…It could be both, like an electron is a point particle and infinitely small, yet extended out in space due to its wave character. ..…
Good point.[/b]
Or is the size of the particle larger than the size of the space?
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe diameter of the universe can be defined as the distance between two points as far away to eachother as possible.
It depends on how you would define the diameter of the universe.
The same as the diameter of the surface of the earth. The distance between two points as far away to eachother as possible. Like from the south pole to the north pole.
I think everyone has an intuitive definition of what the diameter of the universe is. I called it the size of space.
You wrote:
"It could be both, like an electron is a point particle and infinitely small, yet extended out in space due to its wave character. But since there is no quantum theory of gravity, it's hard to tell."
Is this a good point or not?
My questions are:
"Is the size of the space larger than the size of the particle?
Or is the size of the particle larger than the size of the space?"
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm not sure how far you've delved into quantum theory, but the notion of a "point" in space to denote the "end" of some object becomes blurred; it doesn't make much of a difference for, say, the Earth, but for singular objects like an electron or possibly, the singular universe before the Big Bang, it makes a large difference. You can't really define a "diameter" of an electron (or singular universe) in the same way as you would define the diameter of a marble. There's an extra complication in the case of the universe, because the huge mass significantly curves spacetime.
The diameter of the universe can be defined as the distance between two points as far away to eachother as possible.
The same as the diameter of the surface of the earth. The distance between two points as far away to eachother as possible. Like from the south pole to the north pole.
I think everyone has an intuitive definition of what the diameter ...[text shortened]... size of the particle?
Or is the size of the particle larger than the size of the space?"