What caused the Big Bang?

[sergey500]

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.

 

Well I am assuming that you do not agree that big bang was the beginning. I did consider those theories that say big bang is just string relapse of a past big crunch (If I understood your point that is). But I based my idea of the very beginning, what happened before those big bangs and crunchs. I am saying energy was always there. I am not sure what I am pointing out here, I think we misunderstood something.

 

Anyways, I was interested when you said time is uniformed too. Since one would have to have strong defination of what time is. I will check that that link slightly later (need to eat.).

[DarkColoredLight]

Well I am assuming that you do not agree that big bang was the beginning. I did consider those theories that say big bang is just string relapse of a past big crunch (If I understood your point that is). But I based my idea of the very beginning, what happened before those big bangs and crunchs. I am saying energy was always there. I am not sure what I am pointing out here, I think we misunderstood something.

 

Anyways, I was interested when you said time is uniformed too. Since one would have to have strong defination of what time is. I will check that that link slightly later (need to eat.).

 

I have 2 cents, want them?

 

I'll try to justify the undefined, by just defing nature. But, what do I know. It's not like I'm the antichrist or **** like that.

[dagaz]

To me one of the big problems in the big bang model as it is currently accepted is that both space and time were created during the Big Bang. Therefore if time was created by the Big Bang there was no before the Big Bang, no way of saying how the Big Bang came into being or what caused it.

 

Also, if you take all the energy - including all the energy from dark energy and dark matter - that is one incredible amount of energy to have in one spot - yet no-one can say how that came to be.

 

Sounds suspiciously like, "Just have faith, my son." Except this time its "All the evidence supports it".

[Mercedes Benzene]

That's a good point.

I did not even take into consideration the creation of time....

 

....unless time existed in some other universe.

[DarkColoredLight]

That's a good point.

I did not even take into consideration the creation of time....

 

....unless time existed in some other universe.

 

 

Is it safe to say that time exists in this universe? Is it safe to say our time, as a universe will end?

 

 

Ashes to ashes? Dusk to dusk?

[pgrmdave]

Asking what caused the big bang is like asking what happened before time existed. Time is a measurement of the movements of matter and energy (as far as I can tell). Before the big bang there was no time so there couldn't have been a cause - at least not from within. It is possible for the universe to have been created from outside, but then we could not learn about it, it would be outside the universe.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Ashes to ashes? Dusk to dusk?

 

I think you mean, "Dust to dust".

:eek2:

[EWright]

To me one of the big problems in the big bang model as it is currently accepted is that both space and time were created during the Big Bang. Therefore if time was created by the Big Bang there was no before the Big Bang, no way of saying how the Big Bang came into being or what caused it.

 

Also, if you take all the energy - including all the energy from dark energy and dark matter - that is one incredible amount of energy to have in one spot - yet no-one can say how that came to be.

 

Sounds suspiciously like, "Just have faith, my son." Except this time its "All the evidence supports it".

 

What is space without time?

 

My position is that time and energy were static and uniform, be it in the form of a tiny singularity or emmense p-brane. However time had no direction and there was no matter as we know it, which means no motion for relative time to exist. Click my signature below for more on my Theory of Temporal Relativity.

[DarkColoredLight]

I think you mean, "Dust to dust".

:shrug:

Probably.

 

 

But, that's not what's important.

 

12/12/12,

DCL

[IDMclean]

All is motion, All is Change.

 

Light travels at a constant velocity of c, and a relative velocity of v in a medium. Time is merely a measurement of relative motion. Not something fundamental, abstract.

[dagaz]

Asking what caused the big bang is like asking what happened before time existed. Time is a measurement of the movements of matter and energy (as far as I can tell). Before the big bang there was no time so there couldn't have been a cause - at least not from within. It is possible for the universe to have been created from outside, but then we could not learn about it, it would be outside the universe.

 

This was exactly the point I was trying to make - science can't explain how the Big Bang happened so we're asked just to accept it based on faith. To me the Big Bang theory raises a lot of questions, yet that same theory tells us those questions are unanswerable - sounds like a bit of religious tautology to me.

[dagaz]

Time is merely a measurement of relative motion. Not something fundamental, abstract.

 

So are you saying there was no time in the Universe before we came along?

[IDMclean]

Saying, that outside of our perceptions, Time does not infact exist as an entity.

 

It is Quantum in nature, in that the smallest increment for an Absolute system, of time (change of one state into another) is 1. time can not be measured, by definition, as zero, or negative unnatural number.

 

Time arrises from motion. Motion is constant(static). That time disappears from a system when it is held completely still, is evidence of this. That nothing is truely at rest, means that "time" ticks(motion) ever foward. useful for keeping track of our motions relative to others, but not fundamental. Not manipulatable like Matter.

[Michaelangelica]

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?

 

Has it only happened once? If it is supported by the Laws of Physics, why can't it happen again?[/quote

 

It is bizarre

"First there was nothing then it exploded" (T Prattchett I think)

 

How do we know that it hasn't happened before?

Or

Happened somewhere else yesterday

or

is going to happen somewhere else tomorrow

How do we know , or could we ever know, if there are multiple UniversesSSS

[Qfwfq]

For a first hand account, read Calvino's short story "All in one point", it's in his book entitled Cosmicomics.

[dagaz]

Time arrises from motion. Motion is constant(static). That time disappears from a system when it is held completely still, is evidence of this. That nothing is truely at rest, means that "time" ticks(motion) ever foward. useful for keeping track of our motions relative to others, but not fundamental. Not manipulatable like Matter.

 

A couple of things I don't understand from this post:

 

1. What do you mean when you say that motion is constant (static)? Doesn't this go against a fundamental description of moton?

 

2. What do you mean when you say that time disappears from a system when it is held completely still? And what is the evidence you alluded to?

 

3. If time is only an abstract concept and things only occur 'now', does this mean that the Big Bang is happening right now? Does this mean that I am being born right now? What about the radioactive decay of atoms such as cesium, how does this occur if there is no time?

 

I could go on and on about that last point. I totally agree that our division of time into hours, minutes, seconds, etc is an arbitrarily agreed abstract system in the same way that measuring distances in kilometres, miles or whatever is an arbitrary, abstract system, but to me they are both real entities. If there is no time, how am I different from the person I was 10 years ago? How is the universe different from what it was 10 billion years ago?

[IDMclean]

It's a matter of geometric state.

 

What I mean by constant motion is that, fundamentally everything is moving about at c=299792458m/s. Everything. Mass simply has some extra dynamics to it, such that it is "frozen" in a given state at the zero-state. Fundamentally then, as counter intuitive as this may seem, the universe is in static motion.

 

Now, if you hit the stop button, so that the universe's constant motion stopped, and the state no longer changed. There would be no way to distiguish now, from a moment ago, "time" effectively would be zero.

 

It's like in sensory deprivation. Without one's senses, one can not tell time. One must have an outside reference. Otherwise all time reduces to zero, for a given state relative to itself. Your heart beats, you feel it. each beat is a measurement of frequency, and is usuable for checking your rest frame against it's reference frame, but fundamentally this is throug motion.

 

Now. With constant motion, and complex geometries. Where a given body has to cross twice the distance that another body does. we get relative measurements of motion.

 

If we have particle 1 that has orbitial radius (relative to center) of 1, and particle 2 that has orbitial radius (relative to center) of 8, such that the distance that particle 2 crosses relative to particle 1 is 8r-1r = 7r per frame of motion. I think, some one do correct me if I have this mixed up.