Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the speck/singularity/thing come from?
xBobTheAlienx
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 61 (99330)
04-11-2004 8:58 PM


This is a serious question. I know if i spent days and days researching i could find the answer, but i figured this was easier. I was wondering if anyone could explain to me where the hyper-compressed ball came from. I found this little bit when i was browsing the forums here:
Nothing exploded. The universe expands continously. As we get further back in time, the universe would thus be smaller and smaller.
So it starts out as a singularity (think a point in space) and then it expands. Nothing blew up.
Where did the singularity come from, what is its cause? I think I have a decent grasp on the most of the rest of the big bang theory, i just dont understand this part.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-12-2004 12:16 PM xBobTheAlienx has not replied
 Message 43 by Radrook, posted 06-04-2004 9:10 AM xBobTheAlienx has not replied
 Message 59 by nipok, posted 08-30-2004 1:52 AM xBobTheAlienx has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 61 (99333)
04-11-2004 9:23 PM


A. The initial universe did not come from anywhere. The expansion of space from a highly dense state is the first event. There is no before this priordial event.
B. The universe is cyclic, and the initial singularity of our universe was preceded by a contracting phase of the universe. Or, see the cyclic model proposed by Steinhardt and friends. The universe is cyclic in this model because an extra dimension collapses every few trillion years or so.
C. See the no boundary proposal. The notion of causality is out the window, so the question of before the big bang is meaningless.
D. Chatoic eternal inflation, where our universe emerges from a pre existing, infinite, expanding universe that itself is without a beginning.
As it stands, there is no way to tell which scenario is correct. Recall that science is limited to the study of the observable universe, which data suggests has a beginning at the big bang. Speculation about anything before that seems more like metaphysics.
[This message has been edited by Beercules, 04-11-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by rineholdr, posted 04-12-2004 11:05 AM Beercules has not replied

  
rineholdr
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 61 (99389)
04-12-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Beercules
04-11-2004 9:23 PM


All of what I read here smells of nothing more than philosophy. No one can say with any certianty that there are other dimensions or that the cosmos is nothing more than a huge perpetual motion machine, which by the way concidering the laws of physics is impossible. To say that everything came from absolute nothing is quite miraculous to say the least but from a creation stand point makes perfect sence since we can at least give homage to a omnipotant miricle worker...God, otherwise your god is nature and physical laws which basically puts you in the same boat as creationist...its a stand on religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Beercules, posted 04-11-2004 9:23 PM Beercules has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 04-12-2004 11:30 AM rineholdr has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 4 of 61 (99390)
04-12-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by rineholdr
04-12-2004 11:05 AM


rineholder writes:
To say that everything came from absolute nothing is quite miraculous to say the least but from a creation stand point makes perfect sence (sic) since we can at least give homage to a omnipotant miricle (sic) worker ...God,.......
Attributing the BB to God IS religion. Science does not attempt to explain nor take a position on religion. Some people contend that the BB simply occured due to a quantum fluctuation and that in the absence of time and space the event had an eternity to occur. The BB theory is simply the most current explaination of what happened . Science can make no claims on what occurred before since there is no data to interpret. How one man interprets the pre BB is a personal matter and is shear speculation anyone who claims to know for sure is either crazy or dogmatic.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by rineholdr, posted 04-12-2004 11:05 AM rineholdr has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 61 (99401)
04-12-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by xBobTheAlienx
04-11-2004 8:58 PM


Well, there are always frontiers of science where we have no idea what is going on. The cause of the big bang is unknown at this time. There are numerous speculative ideas, however, without evidence, that is all they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by xBobTheAlienx, posted 04-11-2004 8:58 PM xBobTheAlienx has not replied

  
xBobTheAlienx
Inactive Junior Member


Message 6 of 61 (99425)
04-12-2004 1:11 PM


rhineholdr, you say God is omnipotent, but it says in the Bible, His own word, that he CANNOT lie. Seems a bit contradictory doesnt it?
Thanks for your help that was most enlightening.
[This message has been edited by xBobTheAlienx, 04-12-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by rineholdr, posted 04-16-2004 2:40 PM xBobTheAlienx has not replied

  
MannyB
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 61 (99458)
04-12-2004 3:41 PM


The BB singularity (and Black Hole singularities for that matter) always strike me as being essentially unphysical. For a start there is the Plank length (~10^-35) below which supposedly it is impossible to describe the physical universe. If I recall correctly it arises from the Uncertainty Principle.
My personal veiw is that singularities arise because we treat space-time as continuous i.e. infinitely divisible. This is fine for mathematical purposes but physical "reality" may be that space-time is quantized (possibly with quata of the order of the plank length).
My understanding is that String/Brane Theory avoids singularities because of a similar type of quantization.

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 61 (99614)
04-13-2004 5:20 AM


hmmmm...the fence is getting kinda crowded

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 61 (99944)
04-14-2004 12:31 PM


somethings just aren't worth the time...
...so what's the point in taking up space ???
I want answers dammit !!!... not conjectural, pseudo-intellectual, grandstanding, regurgitationist bullshit...
...those that tell don't know and those that know don't tell
...any takers ???

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by 1.61803, posted 04-14-2004 12:45 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 10 of 61 (99945)
04-14-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RingoKid
04-14-2004 12:31 PM


Re: somethings just aren't worth the time...
Ringo, what part of the Statement : (No one knows what happened pre Big Bang.) Do you not understand? Making an jackass of yourself wont get you the answers you seek because there is no answer to the question. There is no Data pre BB.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RingoKid, posted 04-14-2004 12:31 PM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by rineholdr, posted 04-16-2004 2:43 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 61 (100033)
04-14-2004 6:18 PM


thanks 1.61803
so any crackpot theory including mine is as valid as anyone elses when you get to pre BB and the vagaries of an infinite universe...
then what's it gonna take to get sum answers ???
as in what proof is required, how can it be acquired and how can I help ???

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Melchior, posted 04-14-2004 6:42 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 61 (100039)
04-14-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RingoKid
04-14-2004 6:18 PM


Re: thanks 1.61803
No, the other way. All speculations are equally invalid as theories because there is no current way of backing them up.
It is quite likely that the way we describe the world (on a fundamental level) will have to be developed quite extensively before we can even say there is a way to explain it. There are quite a few 'new' theories regarding superstrings and branes that *might* give an answer, if they turn out to be valid, but at this time, we just can't give an answer that is based on actual information.
Hence, it would be dishonest to claim to have a direct answer when there is no sure one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RingoKid, posted 04-14-2004 6:18 PM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 04-15-2004 2:01 AM Melchior has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 61 (100094)
04-14-2004 10:34 PM


so what's with all the pointless bickering then and intellectual grandstanding...
...seems everytime someone comes up with an original thought it just gets shot down point blank by the flat earth society or whatever the hell people want to call themselves or given the deafening silence treatment
an opinion is just that...
express yourself not sumbody else what's there to be afriad of...losing face ???
you should see me when I give a shit, i look exactly the same...

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Melchior, posted 04-14-2004 10:50 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 61 (100099)
04-14-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RingoKid
04-14-2004 10:34 PM


Well, it's mostly that you can't really have an opinion on facts to the same extent you can have an opinion on the meaning of life, or politics, or fashion.
So it's vital that you sepparate what you hold as opinions, what you hold as speculations/dreams/visions (and everyone, including scientists, does a fair bit of this) and what you hold as a good model.
There is a lot to be gained from discussing your opinions with others, but some fields are based upon people, to put it bluntly, shutting the hell up about their opinions because they aren't helping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RingoKid, posted 04-14-2004 10:34 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 61 (100120)
04-14-2004 11:57 PM


one persons perception of reality is only their stated opinion...
accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality
...the facts are as you stated nobody knows
so am i helping or do i need to shut up ???
I'm probably not going to shut up but it seems i can't post threads in here anymore so how then can i help ???
I hold my opinions as truth as do most people about their opinions yet by my process i am able to change both and thus redefine my personal reality...
...so dissect my model then, burst my bubble
I really do need it...

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Melchior, posted 04-15-2004 8:51 AM RingoKid has not replied
 Message 53 by Christian7, posted 08-28-2004 7:40 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024