Science question need some nerds

[Melusine]

I was thinking to myself and I had a thought that I'd like some answers to. So by hawkins logic space and time began with the big bang right? So if time started with the big bang, how could anything outside of space and time exist beforehand? There had to be a cause for the big bang it couldn't just "happen". But if space and time is literally everything in this universe which enables cause and effect, how can something that is outside of cause and effect cause the big bang to happen? Anyone have any ideas?

Seems more like a philosophical question, since it is a hypothesis that has no way of being tested. Speculation based on scientific evidence is, after all, just a guess that doesn't try explaining phenomena by supernatural intervention.

There is no way to know for sure. It seems like those trying to answer that are merely spinning their wheels, while some more disingenuous ones liken it to be a way to explain away religions and superstition, which, while I admit, I don't believe in them, I will honor the values brought forth from all of them except one, to which I slam on a regular basis because it IS LAME (pun absolutely intended).

I'd almost be willing to say it might be better to think on the applications of light speed and how to achieve it, I mean, once upon a time, man thought the earth was flat. It was also considered the center of the universe once. At a time, the sun was considered to be the center of the universe, and don't even get me started with medical technology and the sound barrier. The last example I'll use is that once, mater could not be created or destroyed by chemical or physical means, and yet, nuclear fission and fusion demonstrate a loss of mass in the E = mc^2 formula, proving that can be done, as well (still no word on creating matter).

Hey, at least that would be science based on science fiction.... you never know if it is really possible until it is tried.

[Forogil]

A better visualization I've heard is that the balloon is a good analogy for the universe, but it's a 2d plane wrapped around a 3d core; the analogous concept to the universe is that the entire universe is the skin of the balloon. And the whole thing is expanding. It's just expanding in three dimensions, where the balloon expands in a curved plane. The math doesn't require a 4th dimension, but if the balloon is a 2d plane wrapped around a 3d core, the universe is a 3d framework wrapped around a 4d "core".

That is a possible theory - but a balloon has a curved surface and if you go round to the other end you get back to where you started - i.e. it is periodic.

Our current universe is not visibly periodic (according to measurements of cosmic background radiation) and if it has any global curvature it is small compared to the universe. Thus if the analogy is true our entire universe is a very tiny patch of the balloon - but it could also be that the balloon is "broken" and actually has an edge - but the edge is outside our universe, or it could be stranger still.

[XDurionX]

It's counter-intuitive but think of everywhere as being the center of the universe.

Not only that, but by Hubble's law, everything's speed of expansion is proportional to the distance to the beholder, and thus accelerating all the time.

[Halyon]

I was thinking to myself and I had a thought that I'd like some answers to. So by hawkins logic space and time began with the big bang right? So if time started with the big bang, how could anything outside of space and time exist beforehand? There had to be a cause for the big bang it couldn't just "happen". But if space and time is literally everything in this universe which enables cause and effect, how can something that is outside of cause and effect cause the big bang to happen? Anyone have any ideas?

We don't know. Could've been something, probably was in my opinion, but we don't have the tech to find out currently. So the answer is "we don't know".

[Criz]

I have read 45 responses to the question. All 45 say the exact same thing just in different ways yet almost all of them seem to be terrified to just say it plainly. I/We do not know. Scientists do not know. No one knows. Frankly all the theories and guesses are just cool fantasy. Seems to me if people could just say "I dont know" a little more often and stop acting like they know something things would be less confusing.

[Chrysia]

I have read 45 responses to the question. All 45 say the exact same thing just in different ways yet almost all of them seem to be terrified to just say it plainly. I/We do not know. Scientists do not know. No one knows. Frankly all the theories and guesses are just cool fantasy. Seems to me if people could just say "I dont know" a little more often and stop acting like they know something things would be less confusing.

Scientists say "we don't know" all the time.

[Shakari]

Well, first, there's no "left" for that other universe to be in. Space itself is tied to this universe, and stretches and expands as the universe does. And the universe is all of it, forever, infinite.

Second, even if we theorized that there were another Big Bang type event outside our universe, we'd have no way to see it. We can't see everything in this universe, because light's only had so long to travel since the beginning. And space was expanding faster than the speed of light, back in the beginning. Which doesn't break physics because physics is actually really weird.

How can we possible know that our "universe" is not one of many like galaxies in our universe, the could be one of a few or may and we currently have zero way of knowing, the big bang could simply be the birth of another universe in a much larger entity, the question would arise though where does it stop. I do think it a little arrogant to assume that outside our universe (which we actually do not know the full size of with any accuracy) is the be all and end all without any realistic idea if that's the case, we're guessing at best.

[Shinra1]

Surface brightness of stars does no such thing. Where are you getting this information?

I'm not going to do the homework for you. If you really care you would look it up. I'm not here to educate you.

There is already a case to debunk the Big bang and chief among them is the evidence that the universe is not expanding.

[Chrysia]

I'm not going to do the homework for you. If you really care you would look it up. I'm not here to educate you.

There is already a case to debunk the Big bang and chief among them is the evidence that the universe is not expanding.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You're claiming a foundational theory of modern cosmology has been proven false. Back up that claim.

- - - Updated - - -

I looked up surface brightness for giggles and found this.

https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpre...ol-boy-errors/

You're factually wrong about surface brightness not changing with distance, there are just mitigating factors that require the change in distance to be severe before the effect is detectable.

[WhiteEagle888]

Hey! What are you trying to start?

The Big Bang did come out of no where. "In the beginning there was nothing. Poof! Everything came into being, at least once it started cooling down."

So "nothing" was hot to begin with?

[zlygork]

While it is an accepted scientific theory with some merit, I want to point out that the big bang started as a religious explanation. Truth is, as many have said we truly don't know and even the most complex theories that have shown up by the brightest minds in our society are more than likely far from the truth. It takes just a very tiny discovery to turn all of our understanding of the universe upside down.

[Chrysia]

While it is an accepted scientific theory with some merit, I want to point out that the big bang started as a religious explanation. Truth is, as many have said we truly don't know and even the most complex theories that have shown up by the brightest minds in our society are more than likely far from the truth. It takes just a very tiny discovery to turn all of our understanding of the universe upside down.

Where do you people get this stuff? The expanding universe model that became known as Big Bang Cosmology did not begin as a religious explanation.

[Elegiac]

OP, wake up. There is a growing case against the 'Big Bang theory' and the most recent evidence comes from research that contradicts one of the pillars of this theory, that is the universe is actually not expanding as the brightness of stars further away should be lower according the Big Bang theory but this is not the case in fact surface brightness of stars and galaxies remains constant. There is older evidence that stands up against a big bang including low levels of lithium detected in stars when one would expect larger quantities, no real proof of dark matter and the evidence that background microwave radiation that is a remnant of the original big bang is asymmetrical throughout the sky never mind the rest of the universe. This all adds to the evidence of an evolving, but non-expanding universe, which had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.

Instead of falsifying the Big Bang theory cosmologists have been lying to you and adding ridiculous new parameters to the original theory like dark energy that the theory is much more speculative and less sound than Ptolemaic epicycles!

Yeah, no. Dark matter and a lot of the non-observed hypotheses are by and far the most parsimonious explanations for what we are observing; alternatives like variable gravity and the like are more in the vein of deferents and epicycles. There is still significant observational evidence supporting the Big Bang above the other models, which rely more on the gaps that aren't currently explained by modern physics.

If you're going to harp on things which we don't have an answer for, you're far better off focusing on baryon asymmetry.

- - - Updated - - -

So "nothing" was hot to begin with?

"Something" was hot when it came into existence by virtue of the concentration of everything into such a compact format, at least insofar as we define heat as a concentration of energy.

But it may be that 'nothing' was hot simply by virtue of the fact that conventional physics break down once you start reaching the Planck temperature.

[Hammerfest]

Anyone have any ideas?

Oh yes... many of us have ideas. Unfortunately, the PTB at the MMO-C Forums are demonstrably afraid of many of them.

[WhiteEagle888]

Yeah, no. Dark matter and a lot of the non-observed hypotheses are by and far the most parsimonious explanations for what we are observing; alternatives like variable gravity and the like are more in the vein of deferents and epicycles. There is still significant observational evidence supporting the Big Bang above the other models, which rely more on the gaps that aren't currently explained by modern physics.

If you're going to harp on things which we don't have an answer for, you're far better off focusing on baryon asymmetry.

- - - Updated - - -



"Something" was hot when it came into existence by virtue of the concentration of everything into such a compact format, at least insofar as we define heat as a concentration of energy.

But it may be that 'nothing' was hot simply by virtue of the fact that conventional physics break down once you start reaching the Planck temperature.

Exactly - you must surely have noticed that that was a rhetorical question.

[Elegiac]

Oh yes... many of us have ideas. Unfortunately, the PTB at the MMO-C Forums are demonstrably afraid of many of them.

Largely because "many of them" are unsubstantiated bullshit that don't really answer anything but just add layers of complexity that require -further- explanation than the gaps in the scientific models.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly - you must surely have noticed that that was a rhetorical question.

I did, but I still find the concept worth discussing since it's interesting and challenges our idea of what 'nothing' really is. Though I'm not sure if it's really 'nothing' as in the absence of 'something' or just a failure of nuance in the language we use to describe it.

[MrPaladinGuy]

Troll lets loose some bait, way too many people get hooked.

[WhiteEagle888]

Largely because "many of them" are unsubstantiated bullshit that don't really answer anything but just add layers of complexity that require -further- explanation than the gaps in the scientific models.

- - - Updated - - -



I did, but I still find the concept worth discussing since it's interesting and challenges our idea of what 'nothing' really is. Though I'm not sure if it's really 'nothing' as in the absence of 'something' or just a failure of nuance in the language we use to describe it.

Surely you don't mean God? That would be preposterous!

[Hammerfest]

Largely because "many of them" are unsubstantiated bullshit...

... which is an unwarranted extrapolation since "many of them" are not allowed to be discussed here.

[Elegiac]

... which is an unwarranted extrapolation since "many of them" are not allowed to be discussed here.

Precisely because they are unsubstantiated bullshit that don't rely on a lick of observational evidence.

The actual universe, the one built on the pillars of physics is far more interesting to discuss and more informative to boot.