http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869
Quote
Evidence of events that happened before the Big Bang can be seen in the glow of microwave radiation that fills the Universe, scientists have asserted.
Renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose said that analysis of this cosmic microwave background showed echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.
I never said any of that shit.
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
I like the cyclical theory of the Universe, it helps to "make sense" of the incredibly mind-bending question of "what was there before the Big Bang" but it seems to have little in the way of evidence going for it.
In particular, Penrose's findings were disputed here (http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/11/22/roger-penrose-hunts-for-traces-of-other-big-bangs/).
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
Well, something had to exist before, right? How did that pre-bang singularity come into being and why did it suddenly expand if it was perfectly happy being a dot for an eternity before?
That said, everyone has trouble with it. People discover things that they understand but still boggle their minds.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 05:30:05 PM
I like the cyclical theory of the Universe, it helps to "make sense" of the incredibly mind-bending question of "what was there before the Big Bang" but it seems to have little in the way of evidence going for it.
In particular, Penrose's findings were disputed here (http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/11/22/roger-penrose-hunts-for-traces-of-other-big-bangs/).
It's a start though to figuring it out, as, like the counter argument states, there are other things that would have to be answered. So far I'm sticking with ekpyrotic since its a satisfactory enough explanation for my purposes.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
LRN2BIBLENOOB
or alternatevely, India, Egypt, Nietzsche and the Merry-go-round Universe (which i consider a good band name, coincidentally)
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on December 01, 2010, 06:35:46 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
LRN2BIBLENOOB
God's whut done it. He sed Let thur be laht and thur wuz laht, an' he done saw thet it were good.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
Well, something had to exist before, right? How did that pre-bang singularity come into being and why did it suddenly expand if it was perfectly happy being a dot for an eternity before?
That said, everyone has trouble with it. People discover things that they understand but still boggle their minds.
The problem is that asking what happened "before" there was
time itself is a nonsense question. Hawking has said as much, and I try to take what he says seriously, out of all theoretical physicists.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 06:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
Well, something had to exist before, right? How did that pre-bang singularity come into being and why did it suddenly expand if it was perfectly happy being a dot for an eternity before?
That said, everyone has trouble with it. People discover things that they understand but still boggle their minds.
The problem is that asking what happened "before" there was time itself is a nonsense question. Hawking has said as much, and I try to take what he says seriously, out of all theoretical physicists.
Doesn't have to rely on our perception of time though, and at any rate the average human mind will resist such a thought anyway as not making sense. Time was meaningless at the moment before the Big Bang occured, but that doesn't mean that time didn't exist.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 06:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
Well, something had to exist before, right? How did that pre-bang singularity come into being and why did it suddenly expand if it was perfectly happy being a dot for an eternity before?
That said, everyone has trouble with it. People discover things that they understand but still boggle their minds.
The problem is that asking what happened "before" there was time itself is a nonsense question. Hawking has said as much, and I try to take what he says seriously, out of all theoretical physicists.
Doesn't have to rely on our perception of time though, and at any rate the average human mind will resist such a thought anyway as not making sense. Time was meaningless at the moment before the Big Bang occured, but that doesn't mean that time didn't exist.
Sure it does. If entropy isn't occurring, neither is time.
Student: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING?
Teacher: There isn't!
Dammit, now my head hurts. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 06:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
Well, something had to exist before, right? How did that pre-bang singularity come into being and why did it suddenly expand if it was perfectly happy being a dot for an eternity before?
That said, everyone has trouble with it. People discover things that they understand but still boggle their minds.
The problem is that asking what happened "before" there was time itself is a nonsense question. Hawking has said as much, and I try to take what he says seriously, out of all theoretical physicists.
Doesn't have to rely on our perception of time though, and at any rate the average human mind will resist such a thought anyway as not making sense. Time was meaningless at the moment before the Big Bang occured, but that doesn't mean that time didn't exist.
I'm pretty sure they have evidence that time literally was not taking place. It's not a matter of perceiving time, it's a matter of
things not happening in a temporally definable sequence.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 07:21:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 06:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
I have trouble with "before the big bang". Anyone care to educate me?
Well, something had to exist before, right? How did that pre-bang singularity come into being and why did it suddenly expand if it was perfectly happy being a dot for an eternity before?
That said, everyone has trouble with it. People discover things that they understand but still boggle their minds.
The problem is that asking what happened "before" there was time itself is a nonsense question. Hawking has said as much, and I try to take what he says seriously, out of all theoretical physicists.
Doesn't have to rely on our perception of time though, and at any rate the average human mind will resist such a thought anyway as not making sense. Time was meaningless at the moment before the Big Bang occured, but that doesn't mean that time didn't exist.
I'm pretty sure they have evidence that time literally was not taking place. It's not a matter of perceiving time, it's a matter of things not happening in a temporally definable sequence.
I have trouble wrapping my mind around that on the basis that if nothing was happening, why didn't that continue? I think most people have a problem with that. It's easy enough to conceive of time not existing because nothing happens in definable sequence, but then why did something suddenly start doing something? It's in the same boat as, "why didn't that point of stuff just stay a point of stuff?"
The universe has no obligation to behave comprehensibly.
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Nothingness is unstable.
The only proof required for this is "We're here."
Stupid Universe! Behave! :argh!:
But, anyway, I do find this interesting, and hope that further ideas can flesh out the hypothesis more.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Ha, yes. We're the weird ones, not QM. Us humans and our nonsense "macro level", whatever the hell that is.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:31:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Nothingness is unstable.
The only proof required for this is "We're here."
Has interesting implications for the Dark Era of the Universe (which, I can wrap my mind around)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 07:36:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:31:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Nothingness is unstable.
The only proof required for this is "We're here."
Has interesting implications for the Dark Era of the Universe (which, I can wrap my mind around)
The dark era? Was that when everyone was running around in Deathstars?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 07:36:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:31:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Nothingness is unstable.
The only proof required for this is "We're here."
Has interesting implications for the Dark Era of the Universe (which, I can wrap my mind around)
The dark era? Was that when everyone was running around in Deathstars?
Comes after the Degenerate Era. Basically, black holes will have evaporated by that time, and atoms will have been torn apart and particles will be spread out and diffuse to the point where they rarely interact with each other.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 07:47:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 07:36:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:31:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Or, as a notable physcist once put it, "the quantum universe is not intuitive."
Nothingness is unstable.
The only proof required for this is "We're here."
Has interesting implications for the Dark Era of the Universe (which, I can wrap my mind around)
The dark era? Was that when everyone was running around in Deathstars?
Comes after the Degenerate Era. Basically, black holes will have evaporated by that time, and atoms will have been torn apart and particles will be spread out and diffuse to the point where they rarely interact with each other.
I think they established that the universe is closed, so the heat death model doesn't apply.
You should be so fucking lucky.
What about the recent evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a closed universe.
So....what happens to all that entropy?
At the end of the universe, God shows up and tells us it wasn't actually entropy, he predestined it all.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:14:19 PM
What about the recent evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a closed universe.
Edwin Hubble is recent?
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 08:20:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:14:19 PM
What about the recent evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a closed universe.
Edwin Hubble is recent?
Ok, that the universe is accelerating at rates that imply an open universe.
a trillion years from now, all the matter in the universe will have dissolved into an energy field, and that energy field will slowly decay into an infinitely larger field with infinitely less potential, until it gets so immense, so homogenous, and so weak that the inertia (or whatever) of the energy dissipating matches the potential of the energy itself, causing a spontaneous self-fueling retraction of the entire field into a single point, and everything explodes in the opposite dimension, creating another big bang.
there, i just figured out the cycle of the universe for these latte-sipping theoretical physics spags. maybe now they can do something useful like invent me a fucking hovercar.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:25:02 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 08:20:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:14:19 PM
What about the recent evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a closed universe.
Edwin Hubble is recent?
Ok, that the universe is accelerating at rates that imply an open universe.
O.
I have more science history than up-to-the-minute, actual science under my belt. :oops:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 08:18:27 PM
At the end of the universe, God shows up and tells us it wasn't actually entropy, he predestined it all.
If that happens, he getting my boot in his nutsack.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 08:25:47 PM
a trillion years from now, all the matter in the universe will have dissolved into an energy field, and that energy field will slowly decay into an infinitely larger field with infinitely less potential, until it gets so immense, so homogenous, and so weak that the inertia (or whatever) of the energy dissipating matches the potential of the energy itself, causing a spontaneous self-fueling retraction of the entire field into a single point, and everything explodes in the opposite dimension, creating another big bang.
there, i just figured out the cycle of the universe for these latte-sipping theoretical physics spags. maybe now they can do something useful like invent me a fucking hovercar.
But I don't drink latte and I don't know shit about even regular cars!
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:25:02 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 08:20:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:14:19 PM
What about the recent evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a closed universe.
Edwin Hubble is recent?
Ok, that the universe is accelerating at rates that imply an open universe.
O.
I have more science history than up-to-the-minute, actual science under my belt. :oops:
Is all good. I'm kind of a tard for space stuff. I don't get some of it, but I like to read up on it from time to time and see what the progress on figuring stuff out is.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 08:18:27 PM
At the end of the universe, God shows up and tells us it wasn't actually entropy, he predestined it all.
Although if Harry Potter from MoR ends up becoming a God, he'll more likely turn up and say "Ha ha! Fooled you all! Again!"
I actually hope at the end of the Universe, we will hear a giant, booming voice saying "welcome to...Level Two!"
:lulz:
Wouldn't put that past any clever deity.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 08:25:47 PM
a trillion years from now, all the matter in the universe will have dissolved into an energy field, and that energy field will slowly decay into an infinitely larger field with infinitely less potential, until it gets so immense, so homogenous, and so weak that the inertia (or whatever) of the energy dissipating matches the potential of the energy itself, causing a spontaneous self-fueling retraction of the entire field into a single point, and everything explodes in the opposite dimension, creating another big bang.
there, i just figured out the cycle of the universe for these latte-sipping theoretical physics spags. maybe now they can do something useful like invent me a fucking hovercar.
Also, I look forward to reading the abstract of your paper putting forth this hypothesis.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
I actually hope at the end of the Universe, we will hear a giant, booming voice saying "welcome to...Level Two!"
I think I was just introduced to my new microreligion.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 08:52:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
I actually hope at the end of the Universe, we will hear a giant, booming voice saying "welcome to...Level Two!"
I think I was just introduced to my new microreligion.
:lulz: That is pretty awesome
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 08:52:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
I actually hope at the end of the Universe, we will hear a giant, booming voice saying "welcome to...Level Two!"
I think I was just introduced to my new microreligion.
:lulz: That is pretty awesome
:mittens:
ScottPilgrimsim?
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 08:18:27 PM
At the end of the universe, God shows up and tells us it wasn't actually entropy, he predestined it all.
Although if Harry Potter from MoR ends up becoming a God, he'll more likely turn up and say "Ha ha! Fooled you all! Again!"
I actually hope at the end of the Universe, we will hear a giant, booming voice saying "welcome to...Level Two!"
I WILL NOT GO TO SECOND LEVEL WITH YOU!
Quote from: Richter on December 01, 2010, 09:37:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 08:18:27 PM
At the end of the universe, God shows up and tells us it wasn't actually entropy, he predestined it all.
Although if Harry Potter from MoR ends up becoming a God, he'll more likely turn up and say "Ha ha! Fooled you all! Again!"
I actually hope at the end of the Universe, we will hear a giant, booming voice saying "welcome to...Level Two!"
I WILL NOT GO TO SECOND LEVEL WITH YOU!
GAME OVER
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 08:04:49 PM
I think they established that the universe is closed, so the heat death model doesn't apply.
You should be so fucking lucky.
I don't see how a closed universe helps prevent heat death. Eventually there won't be enough fusable material left for there to be any active stars, and from there the universe slowly approaches a uniform temperature. It might be a warmer heat death, but it's still heat death.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 01, 2010, 11:43:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 08:04:49 PM
I think they established that the universe is closed, so the heat death model doesn't apply.
You should be so fucking lucky.
I don't see how a closed universe helps prevent heat death. Eventually there won't be enough fusable material left for there to be any active stars, and from there the universe slowly approaches a uniform temperature. It might be a warmer heat death, but it's still heat death.
Not if gravity starts to pull everything back in. It would be a Big Crunch scenario.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 06:57:54 PM
Student: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING?
Teacher: There isn't!
Student: :barstool: