No, it's just addressing the fact that you are adding absolutely nothing that is new and/or valid to the discussion.
Your effort in this thread has been focused on preventing all ideas on the big bang, writing it off as not even being part of science. By refusing to consider ALL foundations for rational thought on this topic, existing OR new, what could you possible care about more new comment?
You're projecting. The fact is you have yet to address the evidence already mentioned in this thread.
Hard to imagine all the known, and unknown mass in the Universe once occupied the 'singularity' prior to the BB? If I assume it did, then that's some pretty interesting physics. Do we theorize how long the 'singularity' existed before the BB? Surely it was busting at the seams so not long? How did the singularity acquire all the mass? From a previous universe that contracts back to a singularity? Or can the singularity create it's own mass until it pops? Some kind of super-hyper-ludicrous process with a by-product of mass? Can we ever look back in time to see whatever existed before we existed...
The problem is.... before the big bang there was no time. That makes it very difficult to ask how long before. A singularly..... in my understanding is where matter collapses upon itself to a one dimensional point. All the mass is contained therein.
Yes, you do it all the time whenever you look at the stars in the sky because what you are seeing is how they looked many light years in the past. The light from the stars that you see now originated back in time long before we ever existed.
It may never be proven and will remain a theory until something better comes along. But it is part of science. The purpose to science is to explain observable phenomena and investigate and solidify the explanations. The phenomenon is the fact that the universe is expanding. While the big bang will never be observed it is the current theoretical explanation for something that is observable. Endless dimensions are within the scope of science as well. They derive from mathematics rather than observation like Einstein's theories. Questioning their existence is scientific as well. Questioning is part of investigating theories.
Yes - this gets a little weird. Photons don't have "rest mass". Like, what would a photon weigh if it were sitting there on your table.. But, photons zip along at light speed and have energy which Einstein points out has a mass equivalent. Ask more questions, but I'm probably wrong dude to go any deeper! Like a lot of things in science, if you really want to understand it, you have to do the work - like getting a phd. And, I didn't do that with physics.
It's the standard theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. Though I don't know if there's any proof that this is the case. It doesn't seem that the Universe is slowing down, but it hasn't quite written off the idea of a Big Crunch.
I explain how science and religion work here: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...mperature-ever.567973/page-34#post-1071445866
In science (as opposed to Theoretical Physics) a theory exists only after an hypotheisis has met certain criteria. Religion and science do not share anything foundational AT ALL. The foundation of science is that mankind may observe. The foundation of religion is that there is a supernatural force. The result of that is that the logic of science and the logic of religion follow VERY different paths. And, in fact there is no logic accepted by science that can make any statements AT ALL about determiniations made by religious methods. Religious argument ALWAYS has the practical characteristic that a religion is safe from all opposing argument. So for example, religious methods can not resolve disputes such as the existance of hell or purgatory, the requirements for attaining everlasting life, and other issues fairly central to religion. On the other hand, the evidence based logic of science results in resolutions to all manner of questions for which there is the technological ability to gather evidence and test. So for the most part, scientists from around the world can share evidence, methodologies, etc., and form agreements that come from discarding false ideas - again, something religion can not do. Thus the differences could not possibly be more significant or fundamental.
Yes I understand this, however, we're observing light from something else when we do this...not observing what precisely preceded this Universe. We can't see our Solar system 15 billion years ago. We can see other solar systems from 15 billion years ago but not ours...yes/no?
That is different than the Einstein model accepted today, I think. With time being just one part of our space-time, our understanding of time seems like it would be strictly tied to this universe.
I agree there is a limit, which is probably something like the time when our universe expanded enough that light could escape. So, the cosmic microwave background radiation probably represents one hard limit. But, that still didn't provide us with astronomical bodies to look at. Those would come later. Does that make sense?
So 'another' universe will be in a different time zone, represented by 'their' BB event? I can imagine this within each universe...but what about from a higher altitude in which we are observing 'several' universes; there would need to be a time factor for all that exists??
Yes, thank you...regarding the BB and this thread, multiple BB's, of the same mass and space time, means there is a BB event, then a contraction of everything back to a singularity, then another BB event, contracting back to a singularity, and so on into perpetuity? Billions and trillions of years of elapsed time. Except 'time' starts and stops within each universe with the BB and the contraction. If the BB is instantaneous upon contraction then no need for 'time' between universes? How can we ever know...
That's beyond my pay grade, of course. As this is an issue of theoretical physics, it is interesting to hear from theoretical physicists. I especially like hearing from Sean Caroll, an eminent theoretical physicist whose job it is to figure out what came before our universe. He speaks with amazing clarity and concern for those who aren't physiciss. And, he has guests who have very different opinions, but who he gives serious respect and makes no attempt to argue his own case - really cool! His podcast is called "Mindscape" . He discusses all sorts of topics on his podcast, but there are a couple titles referring to quantum mechanics and reality. And, there is one where his guest is Roger Penrose, another key figure in theoretical physics. These guys are making serious attempts to come up with models that are consistent in terms of being capable to create our reality. Hopefully, experimentalists could find ways of testing their results.
I think the idea is that this BB was the kind of even that could take in more "places" than one - that there could be other BBs. In fact, there was a thought that if there were muiltiple BBs, it might be possible to see the intersection of ours and some other BB. It was thought that there would be certain kinds of rings that would be observable in the matter distribution of our universe that could be caused by such an intersection. There was a serious attempt to find such rings, but they were not found. Anyway, that's an indeication that there was serious thought amonng theoretical physicists that there could be more than one BB at a time. As for our own, in 1998 it was discovered that the expansion of our universe is happening at an increasing rate. That would indicate that gravity will not ever be able to stop our expansion, and thus we will end by simply fading away as everything cools down - in some absurdely huge amount of time, of course. Physicists are even more interested in this topic than at some times in the past, as dark matter, dark energy, etc., may give clues concerning how to resolve the differences between quantum mechanics and Einstein's gravity - which don't match - perhaps the most important question in physics today. There are multiple ways of measuring the age of the universe. They depend on different physical phenomena. Now, get this: The multiple ways of measureing the age of the universe do not match! And, they don't match by enough that calculations of error do not solve the problem! There is some hope that this discrepency could lead toward an answer to the quantum mechanics/gavity problem. That is, there is a real difference, not just measurement errors. If that leads to a solution to the physics problem we have, it might be as big a deal as what happened when Einstein gave us relativity theory. (Maybe?) Or, at least that's what I think I'm hearing.
Yes! There is what is called the observable horizon which is the point at which anything that emits light at a distance from us that is greater than the speed of light cannot be observed. There are better ways to explain that concept but I cannot think of them right now. Let us try a thought experiment instead. Assume that you have a "transporter" that could move you instantaneously from earth to the very edge of our current observable universe. You get there and look back at our Sun but what you are observing is what out Sun looked like in the past, not as it was when you instantaneously crossed to the edge of the observable universe. So technically we could see what our solar system looked like in the past if we were able to observe it from some other point in the universe which is way beyond our current abilities. The more interesting question is what would you see at the edge of the observable universe if you looked in the opposite direction to that from which you just came? Would that space be empty? Or would it be part of the other 90+ percent of the universe that we know must exist but we cannot observe? My own money is on the latter.
Thank you...I will check out Sean's podcasts. Sometime on these forums, and other times during my 'thinking', sans the math/physics, I enjoy contemplating all that exists. I quickly and always realize how lacking my brain is and how frustrating it is to ponder things that no one has answers. I usually end my thinking wondering why and how the Universe can be so big, the vastness of time and space? It is inconceivable to me that us humans are alone. Since we must not be alone, how many others can there be? Are ALL of them going through the same contemplations and theories feeling alone on their respective rock? Either there exists and new set of physics that allows us to minimize the vastness of space, or, humans will forever be left wanting...wondering...pondering...
If there are multiple BB's, occurring in parallel, in order to not be detectable, the distances between BB's must be on scale literally impossible to fathom. Each BB would be a 'universe' as we know it. We can't get our minds around a single universe then we theorize there are multi-verses! My small brain says if intelligent life can form and evolve on Earth, then in a sea of billions and billions and billions of planets/moons in our Universe, the process surely happens frequently. Was it Sagan who said if this is not the case 'what a waste of space'? It is the vastness of this space that may prevent us from ever knowing! Frustrating for humans who have evolved enough to ponder the questions but not enough to solve the riddles...
