Sub sub atomic particles.
One day, getting some of them cane together, and that proximity was enough for one to develop a charge. This charge caused all the other particles to congeal into a single point and all the heat and energy from that eventually overcame that charge and big boom!
Okay I made that up.
But it sounds good.
Right before the Big Bang, there was nothing. Any questions?
This is a flawed question, called a loaded question. It has an assumption in it that cannot be made, we cant assume that there was something before the big bang and evidence shows that the time started at the big bang. Its called space-time for a reason, it was a singularity with no space, therefor no time either, to say something came before the big bang makes no sense.
For an interesting answer to OPs question watch "Einsteins greatest blunder" on Netflix. They suggest that the speed of light does change and could account for triggering of a big bang when the density of the universe is just right and explains how they can be cycled
Implying there was only on big bang
In my not-so-educated opinion probably an unimaginable realm of pure energy. A place where the laws of time and space simply don't exist because there is no space. This energy (or strings) randomly does something strange or combines with other energy to create massive explosions capable of converting energy into matter and creating various big bangs across the infinite energy field beyond our universe. We are just one of an infinite number of big bangs across this energy realm.
Could also explain the 'virtual' particles which simply appear and are destroyed in an instant; could be the energy from the background realm behind our universe bleeding through to ours and as that kind of pure energy cannot exist in a place where time and space exist then the energy becomes matter for a brief time.
Everything came before it. It's like when you reverse a hourglass once all the sand has fallen, the sand just starts flowing in the opposite direction.
The real question here is when did it all started and the answer to that is: Time does not really exist. It's just something we perceive in this reality.
And the goal of life is to explore until we rediscover the point of origin for the first time again.
implying there was more, im not claiming anything, you are.
Now where is the evidence for your claim? Because as i see it, all the evidence points towards this universe ending in a big freeze and not a big crunch.
We do, you dont read much do you?
>Time does not really exist. It's just something we perceive in this reality.
Time exists anon, there is a then and a now, and then is not the same as now, how we measure it though is relative to earth only tho
The big bang is an explanation for a locality, not everything. Stop clinging to the narrow perceptions of human experience and begin learning about the wider expanse of the actual universe. We are not only 3 dimensional, we are just too inept to experience past it.
>to say something came before the big bang makes no sense
Here you claim only one big bang and therefore one universe.
Everything in nature as we know it is based on cycles, why would this (the universe) be unique? I agree the universe is expanding so a big crush is out of the question. I watched a doc called "Einsteins greatest (or biggest) blunder" basically if the density of the universe is just right, the speed of light somehow changes and can trigger a big bang
I know I'm being vague but I'm only a biochemist, not a particle physicist and only watched the doc once. Check it out tho
God said "let there be light" and there was light. The Heavenly realms broke through the darkness of the primordial universe.
>inb4 edgy college athiest
Your BBT is a Catholic Cleric-Scientists brainchild(so you're actually following a devout religious man's word) who said he believes it brings them closer to understanding God and proves the scriptures right in that respect with a literal massive light creating everything.
Question is, where did energy for bb come from. Maybe higher dimension beings can understand it amd find the answer, but our capabilities limited. But i perceive it as proof of higher dimensions.
A previous universe that experienced heat death and eventually ran out of dark energy so it recollapsed onto its self, gaining speed and heat as it shrunk until it's immense speed and heat hit the near maximum density possible, causing an unstable point with edges completely surrounded by the edge of the known universe eventually exploded with extreme power causing the creation of energy (and dark energy) through gravity's quick, crushing and the odd physics on the plank scale, recreating itself. It's not rocket science you retard
Except there is evidence the egg came first
the theory is a product of science, which is secular and doesnt require no magic or gods to work. We r in fact, following a secular point of view.
Newton was an alchemist.
Theres no god
why would the universe be unique? You cant claim that its not unique just because nothing else is.
While i agree that the doc is good and interesting, it doesnt mean its accurate, i cant even remember if it claims to be accurate.
To me saying there was another universe before this one is just like the god argument, a non-answer. Even if you were right it would just start another question, where did that universe come from?
And not only that, it also seems to be a forced answer made by people who cant stand not having an answer.
The total energy of the universe is 0, so it could have come from nothing, depending on what you mean by nothing of course. Look up a universe from nothing by Lawrencer Krauss.
>Time exists anon, there is a then and a now, and then is not the same as now, how we measure it though is relative to earth only tho...
Are you certain it's not just your brain playing tricks on you?
The best current evidence indicates our universe will spread out infinitely into whatever it is its spreading out into. There is little to no indicators to suggest that the expansion will ever stop and reverse in on itself. Whether or not there was a previous universe that underwent a "big crunch" to set up the conditions for the big bang, our universe will not be doing it.
Since our universe is the only one we have to study, and it will likely not collapse in on itself, the evidence, such as it is, suggests thats not how ours began.
Because of observations of natures cycles. Space has to follow natural laws and I don't think the universe is special. Having one universe to me makes it special, something different, to me this leaves more room for magical space wizards. But obviously the cycle had to start somewhere somehow. I don't have that answer, I haven't put in the research and a previous Big Bang would be nearly impossible to detect. We can see/hear microwave energy from the latest Big Bang and energy from any previous Big Bang would be so red shifted it would be hard to detect even if it was in our cosmic horizon
You really aren't explaining yourself very well anon
Everytime we thought we understood nature, it sent us a curveball that redefined our understanding of it.
We are far too primitive in our understanding of the universe to make any concrete statements like "It cannot recollapse". For all we know the ever acretion of black holes changes the density of dark energy to a point where it just might realign something and reverse everything. Not suggesting that is true, or even makes sense, but there are no concrete facts that suggest the universe will expand into heat death... only theories. Primative theories.
I didn't think it needed explaining that eggs come from parent animals.
Druggies and what not observe universes in their imagination all the time. Can't say that those observations are replicable and have any basis in reality but from my experience with them, they usually don't care for replication or falsifiability lol
None, read the last two lines I wrote in the post you are replying too
But if you are going that route, how many individual atoms have you personally seen? How many quarks? Do they not exist because YOU haven't seen them?
I know but in their perception it is and in their perception that is evidence. I agree with you, but to save you time it's better to establish conditions for something to be verifiable than to waste your time trying to debunk their shitty hypotheses they came up with while high on peyote or some shit.
Atoms and quarks have been observed, if not by us personally, by other scientists and these observations can be verified by anyone.
Things not existing and us not seeing things are two different issues, but you can't just assume something exists if you don't have the evidence to back it up. There is evidence for quarks and atoms. Not for your hypothesis. (Extrapolating known processes to apply to universes is not valid evidence, that's a comparison fallacy)
The theory says that universes pop into existence when branes (membranes) collide and all the branes are arranged in a stack like a loaf of bread. This theory is from like the 80s so I'm sure it's totally wrong.
At one time scientists didn't believe in atoms/sub atomic particles until new theories, technology and experiments were done. No reason to close the door on the multiverse just yet anon. Unless you have proof this is the only universe ever?
The big bang itself is the beginning of space and time, there is no such thing as "before", because time itself came into existence with the big bang.
I understand what you're asking though, and the answer to your question would simply be: "The cause of the big bang". That's what is "before" or "behind" the big bang.
Because its a logical line of enquiry. That has some mathematical merit.
If people didnt imagine new hypothesis to investigate then we would all still be sat around a campfire wondering where the sun went.
The multiverse theory is a popular theory among academically trained physicists
>Extrapolating known processes to apply to universes is not valid evidence, that's a comparison fallacy
Scientists extrapolate their theories all the time. Do you really think it does happen?
I'm just giving a heed of warning. If you go at them this route, you'll only piss off the ones you're trying to convince because they'll feel you're changing the terms of condition after they've already given their "evidence" and thus in their eyes you're moving the goalpost (even though their evidence is not evidence). If you establish conditions beforehand, they can't say you're moving the goalposts.
Once more, I am in complete agreement with you that it's not evidence, but trying to argue with someone who's already convinced of something they've accepted without proper scientifically-minded rigor requires some delicate ways of steering the conversation. Establishing conditions beforehand helps with that, given that people who are convinced of hypotheses without evidence often mistake hunches or experiences for evidence.
Extrapolating is not evidence. Extrapolating can be done as a ways of experimenting and giving a sense of direction on where to look for evidence, but it is not evidence.
"Watches are made by watchmakers" does not extrapolate to "rivers are made by rivermakers". We know how watches are made by people, because we have observational evidence of people making watches. And we know how rivers are formed by changes in the environment, because we have observational evidence of rivers forming.
Look for light energy that is even more red shifted than the cosmic microwave background. Even though I imagine that that energy would have been pushed out of the way when the new universe expanded. Really we need to see outside the cosmicalogical horizon. Which is impossible so we will prob will never know
the most likely scenario is the "big crunch" of the universe that was here before ours. sooner or later, gravity wins out over the initial kinetic energy of the big bang and the universe starts falling back in on itself, creating a singularity which then explodes again to form the next universe.
No one is saying "there are multiverses"
Unless they are idiots.
People are proposing quite feasable concepts for multiverses and simply having the discussion. Bouncing ideas is what made us what we are.
u imagine an energy wouldve been pushed away by radio waves of lower energy, than microwaves and u somehow know its been done by a different universe, thats a closed system not interacting with other closed systems?
i wouldnt be surprised - i know it. Thats why we have dictionaries. And printed, too, so u cant just say "no, but language changes and no1 uses that word like that anymore", cuz some1 updated a wiki entry.
I rly dont like how the non-dead languages "change" - they change, cuz dumb fucks dont know the meaning of words and use them wrong and propagate that in their group of idiots, which is the majority of society
Finding evidence of ideas and applying it in practice is what made us what we are. Finding evidence of how gravity works and that rockets can be propelled to the moon is what made us land on the moon. Not the bouncing of ideas. (At least, not simply the bouncing of ideas)
Don't get me wrong, bouncing ideas is great to come up with hypotheses but they're not necessarily indicative of anything in reality.
Right. But before any evidence can be gathered someone needs to have an idea that leads to the search for answers.
Multiverse is sufficiently supported in theoretical mathematics and physics that is warrants further investigation.
Its a good, if still largely unsupported, hypothesis.
Red shift means shifting to lower energy. The previous universes remaining energy, if it existed, would have to be more red shifted then the already red shifted cosmic wave background from our Big Bang. Because of inflation this older energy could have been displaced but since it would outside our cosmological horizon we prob will never detect it
No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean that at all.
Things that are moving away from you have the wavelength of their light stretched by the fact that they're moving away from you. Things that are moving toward you have the wavelength of their light compressed by the fact that they're moving toward you.
>Finding evidence of how gravity works
So anon How does gravity work exactly, because physicists don't even know. So it must also be a lie
>Finding evidence of how gravity works and that rockets can be propelled to the moon is what made us land on the moon. Not the bouncing of ideas. (At least, not simply the bouncing of ideas)
Oh I forgot 4chan is where people go to publish ideas of science
>The theory relaxes the assumption[further explanation needed] that the affine connection has vanishing antisymmetric part (torsion tensor), so that the torsion can be coupled to the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of matter, much in the same way in which the curvature is coupled to the energy and momentum of matter. >In fact, the spin of matter in curved spacetime requires that torsion is not constrained to be zero but is a variable in the principle of stationary action.
Regarding the metric and torsion tensors as independent variables gives the correct generalization of the conservation law for the total (orbital plus intrinsic) angular momentum to the presence of the gravitational field.
>because physicists don't even know
Physicists have known HOW it works for centuries. WHY it works is another matter altogether. And some of us do actually know why it works, but it will take some time for the explanation to be widely accepted and even more time for the general public to drop the idea of it being unexplained (especially since most of them won't be able to understand the explanation).
I think you're mistaking the question of "what is gravity?" for "how does gravity work?". We have decent enough approximations of how gravity works to utilize it to go to space and maintain orbit. What gravity is, we don't know yet.
next to it would still effect it dumb dumb
yes when talking about star motion
The actually physics is that light with shorter wavelength is higher in energy than light with long wavelengths. The energy from the big bang is so old that is have red shifted to mircowave wavelengths, much less energy than it originally had. Now I am saying since the previous big bang would have to be older than ours, its remaining energy from its own big bang would be much less (more red shifted) than ours because of age alone
I'll use the elementary-school explanation and spare you a lot of abstract mathematics:
the existence of matter causes strain on the fabric of spacetime. imagine a bowling ball sitting on a trampoline, spacetime is curved by the presence of matter. while the size of the ball may be minute compared to the size of the trampoline, the affect that it has on the fabric covers the entire trampoline.
Place a second bowling ball on the trampoline and the two balls will invariably roll toward each other, because the closer they are the more their gravitational fields will overlap and therefore the less total stress is expressed on the fabric.
the distortion around each ball is their gravitational field. the tendency of the two balls to be pushed toward each other is gravity.
this is where our fundamental views of the universe or multiverse diverge. IMO the difference between universe A and universe B is the same as the differences between galaxy a and galaxy b. The universes in the multiverse, again IMO, reside in the same space but due to shear scale and distances seem to separate or their own entity. Because they reside in the same space (not the same coordinates or overlapping or anything) but like a cluster of soap bubbles
Im pretty sure everyone here understands einsteins explanation of gravity and space-time. What I was asking is how that interaction occurs? How does gravity interact with matter to give this observation
Trips Fairy has noticed you friendo.
Trips Fairy has noticed you friendo.
the human brain was evolved to survive/reproduce/find food on earth. To apply words like "Before" to the big bang and understand what happened, you are better off believing in the giant invisible human pack alpha being who lives in space
Nothing. It isn't that nothing existed, but nothing was moving. Nothing was happening.
Which means that there was no time. Time is the movement of objects through space.
So if there's no such thing as time, then there's no such thing as before the big bang. Tahdah.
brings up god in a science discussion
Might as well. Our resident nobel prize winner isnt delivering his gravity proof and from hereon in it will just be piles of shitposting from clueless retards.
The person who DISCOVERED GRAVITY was a believer in God, you dense dumbshit
Newton also believe is substances that could turn anything into gold and took baths in mercury
Einstein didnt even like quantum mechanics at first but that doesnt mean its wrong
What this indicates is that someone is mad that they aren't smart enough to cut it at a university so they blame the teachers, instead of the parents, for the behavior of the college going, economy building generation that's making their way of life obsolete.
There is no proper evidence of god or similar until we made one. Until we ge some solid facts that are repeatable we can call us as the creators of invisible boogeymen.
Even though it is existential and circle in thought when you try and figure out what happened before the before. We still shouldn't fill in blanks with bullshit made up answers.
nor did you>>719042359
im still looking for your argument to refute mine, all i can find is where you dont understand red shifts when it comes to the energy of light
>the universe we experience is the only 1 we know of
>its not a default position - u need to convince me there r no more universes
convince me spiderman doesnt catch criminals in ny
The big crunch isn't really the most accepted theory about the big bang, it's just a hypothesis. But to answer your question matter and energy can technically come from "nothing" without violating physics. It's very likely that the net energy on the universe is 0 actually.
Probably another universe if the bubble theory is right.
It's also possible that our universe always compress into a singularity and expands in a big bang, which makes the lifetime of our universe endless.