|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Radium wrote: Davoud wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote: Something like this question may be answerable. I hope so! Time is a property of our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of "before" isn't easily defined. Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but perhaps answerable one day. For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that occurred at a certain point in time". The reason is intuitive, as opposed to the counterintuitive claim that time began with our universe. Trust your common sense, and read my posts to Chris and Davoud. AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it does not mean that BB was the start of time. It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything prior to the big bang. I agree. An explosion evolves, requiring the passage of time. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Chris L Peterson wrote: On 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51 -0700, "Radium" wrote: AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it does not mean that BB was the start of time. It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything prior to the big bang. That's not true. No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close to the BB, including time. Okay, but that is after, not before. Time is generally seen as a component of our universe just as the spatial dimensions are. Yes, you're right. It really makes no sense to consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than it makes sense to consider space as having existed. On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time would exist as well. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Mark Earnest wrote: "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote: Hi: What happened before the big bang? Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of our universe, It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! Sorry, but he's right. See my first post to him. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Therefore, mostly what you would need to practice you, especially, it would be something called to Know, because, only and only the thing, that, has had not been existing in that time, it is the English among other languages. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Think About That! "George Dishman" wrote in message oups.com... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote in message ... So we do not know what the world was like back then Either way it does not seem very conducive to life For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, all the matter in the universe was in the form of hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in fact not even any form of solid matter. But there must have been something that suited life Otherwise we would not be here Think again. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: However, what you said, was a just a technically speaking, whether, it allows to turn around a possible similarity betweem a biolology matter and the universe itself, whether, as for instance, any biochemical process and extremelly any environmental conditions, as for instance, along their combinations, which would determine any reactions as any overreaction along the universe. Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not exist. There could be no biochemical processes and no chemical reactions. ... at least to try to figure, that it has had been, along that matter, a definitely allowed to diminish the sun by a just to make it a farther as to allow the creations to get, more or less, an appropriate sunlight, for appropriate life as to allow a most of anything to be a visible, a definitely as a matter a fact. P.S- along some cases, the thinking delay the perception! p.s. I think you need to practice your English! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Mark F. wrote: God said let there be light. that is one option. In Philosophy, yes. In physics, it is not an option, not even a theory - only a concept, an unsupported opinion. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
George Dishman wrote: "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote in message ... So we do not know what the world was like back then Either way it does not seem very conducive to life For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, all the matter in the universe was in the form of hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in fact not even any form of solid matter. SNIP Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not exist. There could be no biochemical processes and no chemical reactions. Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:
No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close to the BB, including time. Okay, but that is after, not before. Time is generally seen as a component of our universe just as the spatial dimensions are. Yes, you're right. It really makes no sense to consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than it makes sense to consider space as having existed. On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time would exist as well. These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. Right now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the universe). The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically is not an argument against it. Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB. While these may be valid theories in the sense that they are testable and falsifiable, they are also very weakly supported at the moment- more in the mode of mathematical games than anything else. I'm not aware of any that require time to have existed before the BB, or even that there was a "before" in the sense I think it is being discussed here. There is no need for a hyperuniverse in which ours formed to contain dimensions that we would recognize as either spatial or temporal (that doesn't mean it couldn't, just that there is no basis for assuming such). Assuming things in this realm of physics simply because it seems natural is very bad reasoning. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
tomgee wrote:
Radium wrote: Davoud wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote: Something like this question may be answerable. I hope so! Time is a property of our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of "before" isn't easily defined. Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but perhaps answerable one day. For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that occurred at a certain point in time". The reason is intuitive, as opposed to the counterintuitive claim that time began with our universe. Trust your common sense, and read my posts to Chris and Davoud. Much of what physics has discovered about the nature of our universe is counterintuitive, including relativity, which obviously is correct or atomic weapons, nuclear reactors, and star wouldn't work. The same is true for quantum mechanics. Prof. Michio Kaku's book "Parallel Worlds" is a fairly decent/readable explanation for non-physicists of the history of physics and cosmology, including why multiverses can, and probably do, exist. The book was copyrighted in 2005, and changes to our knowledge of cosmology have happened since that book was written. -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
tomgee wrote:
George Dishman wrote: "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote in message ... So we do not know what the world was like back then Either way it does not seem very conducive to life For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, all the matter in the universe was in the form of hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in fact not even any form of solid matter. SNIP Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not exist. There could be no biochemical processes and no chemical reactions. Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? No, all matter was created within the first second but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for the first few minutes. The elements formed over a few hours as neutron were captured by protons but it was then in the form of plasma at millions of degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny amount of lithum. It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma cooled enough for electrons to become associated with atoms. The charts here show the timescale and temperatures during nucleosynthesis: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but we know very little about how that occurred. Incidentally I suspect the later messages from "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated programmatically, their structure is similar to some other AI robots that have been set up to post here recently. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 02:37 AM |
The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 6th 05 09:51 PM |
The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy | [email protected] | Misc | 4 | September 2nd 05 05:44 PM |
No Room for Intelligent Design in Big Bang Theory | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 9 | August 8th 05 04:56 PM |
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? | Yoda | Misc | 102 | August 2nd 04 02:33 AM |