dagaz Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Any favourite theories, personal ideas? To me it is just a bizarre concept. I know how the theory is supported experimentally, but how did it get going? Did it violate the Law of Conservation of Energy? If so that's one massive violation. Has it only happened once? If it is supported by the Laws of Physics, why can't it happen again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 If it is supported by the laws of physics, it might not be the laws of physics as they are in the universe *now*, because the standard theory assumes that they break down when we reach t=0. I have absolutely no clue what caused the Big Bang. Maybe some mice in the fifth dimension farted. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagaz Posted June 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Maybe some mice in the fifth dimension farted. :) OK, that's a new one I hadn't heard before! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkColoredLight Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Nothing imploded. Right went so right it went left. Left went so left it went right. Up went so up it went down. Down went so down it went up. Just kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 Just kidding. Nonono, you're on to something. If you do two steps right, then one up, and slide into the 7th dimension, it might say "poof" and there you go - another Big Bang. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 It would be so hard to proove anything is 'why' the big bang happened, I think the best chance would be if we had a model for physics which predicted how it would act at every point in time and so when we interpelate back to t=0, it doesnt break down but actually shows that the big bang should occur. But for the moment I am perfectly correct in saying that possibly the previous universe had laws in it which led to it been a closed one. After some finite time it collapsed in to a single point, which ripped spacetime and poured all this matter and energy into our universe. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkColoredLight Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 Nonono, you're on to something. If you do two steps right, then one up, and slide into the 7th dimension, it might say "poof" and there you go - another Big Bang. :) Shh, you know not what you say. Don't listen to grandpa tormod, he didn't take his meds yet!!! Tormod what did I tell you about thinking outside of the box? Never again. Bad tormod. He's just kidding everyone. It's a game we like to play. Carry on, nothing to see here. That is, unless nothing implodes. :lol: :) :eek2: Here ends the reading of DarkColoredLight, chapter universal truths, verse -1, 0, 1. Brought you in part by the number 666. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkColoredLight Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 It would be so hard to proove anything is 'why' the big bang happened, I think the best chance would be if we had a model for physics which predicted how it would act at every point in time and so when we interpelate back to t=0, it doesnt break down but actually shows that the big bang should occur. But for the moment I am perfectly correct in saying that possibly the previous universe had laws in it which led to it been a closed one. After some finite time it collapsed in to a single point, which ripped spacetime and poured all this matter and energy into our universe. :) Exactly, you can't prove that infinite nothing wanted to turn into infinite everything. I mean come on, that's like saying that babies DIDN'T come from the stork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercedes Benzene Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 You could always take the non-scientific reasoning.... GOD! /forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif But then again... this is a science forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 Why do I have a feeling that almost anything people write here will end up in 'strange claims'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkColoredLight Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 You could always take the non-scientific reasoning.... GOD! /forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif But then again... this is a science forum... Best of both worlds? Re: Indeterminism and FreewillEven if there are only two possibilities, if choice can be exercised, there is free will. If at all possible that the universe didn't know if came from nothing. Being the ultimate action speaking louder than words addvict. Also, being blind of the choice it made to "be the fastest sperm." Then, couldn't the universe just of instinctivly come to exsist? Just another observation as yet another passenger of earth. Looking out my window of opportunity squinking to see what might be, ignoring back seat drivers. While we make our instinctive trip around our sun. Which instictivly sheds light, casts shadows and breeds life. Nature at it's finest folks. "Rather love me or leave me alone." Jay - Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 t=0? Something which is intrinsicly tied to distance, and has a value which is not allowed in quatum physics. Bah humbug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Well in my personal opinion I believe it went something like this. In very beginning there was nothing. Nothing is something. Nothing is uniformed energy. Energy has always been there, always constant...law of conservation. Now here is where it starts, what is the difference between matter and energy? Matter is energy with a shell and properties. Back to our nothingness. This happened over an immense time span (yet no time exists...), the energy wavered together through their own gravity and/or through pure coincidance. The combined energy grew and grew, it developed a shell...and properties. Now we got a basic subparticle. Now that it has some form of mass, it now has its own field and attracts other newly made particles. They have different properties because this is done through random mixing of energy. The subparticles collide and destroy each other. Similar to what particle accelarators do. Over the course of time, they combine again in different formulas. New particles. They keep colliding through their newly made mass and fields. Eventually we form so many particles they are all unstable with other and explode. The big bang doesn't happen in one place, it happened everywhere. For that matter, it wasn't that "big", just big in scale, not power. Now the newly made particles move to create our universe. Of course this is my opinion and it has many flaws, but it is an answer. Wether its right or not is simply a different question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkColoredLight Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 I LOL at all the nonbelievers!!! For I have found a loop hole. For those who had faith in me. You can find me where I hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 If at all possible that the universe didn't know if came from nothing. Being the ultimate action speaking louder than words addvict. Also, being blind of the choice it made to "be the fastest sperm." Then, couldn't the universe just of instinctivly come to exsist? Just another observation as yet another passenger of earth. Looking out my window of opportunity squinking to see what might be, ignoring back seat drivers. While we make our instinctive trip around our sun. Which instictivly sheds light, casts shadows and breeds life. Nature at it's finest folks. In all seriousness, is it possible that English is a second language for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWright Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Well in my personal opinion I believe it went something like this. In very beginning there was nothing. Nothing is something. Nothing is uniformed energy. Energy has always been there, always constant...law of conservation. Now here is where it starts, what is the difference between matter and energy? Matter is energy with a shell and properties. Back to our nothingness. This happened over an immense time span (yet no time exists...), the energy wavered together through their own gravity and/or through pure coincidance. The combined energy grew and grew, it developed a shell...and properties. Now we got a basic subparticle. Now that it has some form of mass, it now has its own field and attracts other newly made particles. They have different properties because this is done through random mixing of energy. The subparticles collide and destroy each other. Similar to what particle accelarators do. Over the course of time, they combine again in different formulas. New particles. They keep colliding through their newly made mass and fields. Eventually we form so many particles they are all unstable with other and explode. The big bang doesn't happen in one place, it happened everywhere. For that matter, it wasn't that "big", just big in scale, not power. Now the newly made particles move to create our universe. Of course this is my opinion and it has many flaws, but it is an answer. Wether its right or not is simply a different question I rather enjoy this view Sergey. However, you could initially state that in the beginning there was 'energy', as opposed to 'nothing', since you then say nothing is something. It is important for those posing the question to understand that the big bang wasn't necessary for a beginning; it is just the leading theory. Similar to your beginning from uniform energy I take the position that Time was also uniform in the beginning, and that Time and Energy had potential for direction (or action as you describe). See my Theory of Temporal Relativity for more on my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkColoredLight Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 In all seriousness, is it possible that English is a second language for you? Probably. Well not yet anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.