Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Before The Big Bang


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,349 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 19 March 2001 - 05:11 PM

Here's a question to get you all thinking : What existed before the Big Bang ? If there was something before the big bang, how did it get there and what was around before that ? :-/

The depth of the ultimate question of the universe is almost impossible to imagine.

Ideas and comments welcome.


#2    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 19 March 2001 - 06:55 PM

  Well, I had a 14 acre lot with an abundance of trees and a nice little fishing pond, but no neighbors. Thought I'd expand the horizon a little, you don't like it? wink2.gif ;D

  Wow, I didn't think I'd have to break out my thesis from M.I.T. to help me form a response to this thread.tongue.gif It is the ultimate question though, isn't it? Theories abound, and one could easily develop a splitting headache trying to make sense of it all. The only ones who seem to have a definitive answer are the creationists &/or those of certain religious persuasions, but it isn't based on any credible scientific data. That is just an observation by the way, so please don't flame me. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their justification for them, however un-scientific they may seem.

  It may well be that this is a question that will remain unanswered for eternity.

Magikman

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#3    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 29 April 2001 - 11:26 AM

That was a well put reply. I read somewhere on the internet(not sure exactly which sight)that the big bang could have been started by another universe from a parellel dimension "bumping into" the edge of its "frontier"(where the two different dimensions meet), creating what we call the big bang from our universe.

Like Magikman stated, I dont think anyone will ever know. For one thing, how would one find the evidence to support ANY theory, much less the rediculous one I just wrote, which isnt even my theory ???

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#4    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,349 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 29 April 2001 - 03:44 PM

Its probably not even possible for humans to comprehend the real truth behind the dawn of existence. The human brain is probably incapable of perceiving such a complex and mind-numbingly difficult thing to grasp.

Trying to come up with what existed before the universe began is enough to give Einstein a headache. I don't think there's much chance of anyone coming up with a truly satisfactory explanation. There are of course theories, but being able to prove what happened before the universe was born is futile, given the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.

It's one of these questions that just can't be answered, but that won't stop generations of scientists for centuries to come, having a dam good go at it.


#5    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 29 April 2001 - 10:24 PM

Homer,

 You probably read about it at the Space.com website where your email address originates from. Here is a little snippet of the theory;


Think parallel branes and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool.

The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.

These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.)

  The idea, put forth earlier this month at a Space Telescope Science Institute meeting in Baltimore, is based on other theories about possible multiple dimensions that are growing in acceptance. It was developed by Neil Turok of Cambridge University, Burt Ovrut of the University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Steinhardt and Justin Khoury of Princeton University.

"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."

  Its interesting to note that the existance of  another dimension is looked at as the origin of alot of UFO's and other phenomena. Of course that still doesn't answer the question about the vastness of space and the time and energy it would take to even find us, but.....

Magikman

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#6    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 30 April 2001 - 07:36 AM

Magikman

Thanks for the reminder, I forgot where I read that.
As you stated, a parellel universe or multiple dimensions always seem to surface as possible scenarios when talking about the universe or UFO's.

But what that theory doesnt explain is how the FIRST dimension(s) originated.

And since my puny human 3 dimensional brain cant comprehend that stuff, I try not to dwell on it too much.

Homer

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#7    FarvLarion

FarvLarion

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2001

Posted 20 August 2001 - 06:24 AM

Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us.  But, if Einstiens theory is correct, and if space is curved, I think that a man could leave Earth and travel out into deep space only to end up back at Earth with no idea of how he got back.  The mind, in my opinion, just could see it.  And, before the big bang, perhaps that too is something that we are not ready to see yet.

Abiogenesis (ab-i-o-jen`-a-sis) n. (Biol.) The theory of spontaineous generation from non-living matter [Gk. a-: neg.: bios, life, genesis, birth].  Farv Michael Larion

#8    Clecko

Clecko

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2001

Posted 27 August 2001 - 06:16 AM

All this "dawn of existance" stuff is now giving me a headache


#9    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 29 August 2001 - 02:56 AM

Farv,

 I know you're one for outrageous claims, but your last is really absurd. Could you show me where any competent scientist has made this rather ludicrous statement;

"Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us."

 What exactly is it we are doing by exploring the farthest reaches of space with the Hubble telescope? Neither have I heard about a mass extinction of astronomers lately. Or is it your contention that the telescope is equipped with some special 'filter' that eliminates the 'killing' effect of the picture? Does man only suffer this 'brain embolism' when he attempts to 'physically' view outer space? Just curious.  :-/

MAGIKMAN

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#10    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 29 August 2001 - 08:37 PM

And another thing Farv

When Einstein stated that the universe is curved, he wasn't implying it was like a race track, where one would just travel 'around' the universe and end up where you left. Light travels in a straight line, until an outside force acts upon it. Gravity caused by dense matter is what causes space to be curved. That being said, if you was to leave in a straight line going away from Earth, you would continue to travel that path until it's disrupted by an outside force IE either something hits you, you hit something, or gravity manipulates your direction. None of which would imply that you would end back at Earth.

By the way, Einsteins theory was proven correct after witnessing a solar eclipse.

Homer[glow=color,strength,width]

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#11    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,368 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 18 September 2001 - 10:45 PM

I think this topic is more metaphysical.  If there was nothing before something, then something is not real. When there are no forces to create something, there is nothing. I've thought about this question my whole life and i've came to the conclusion that reality is fake, but i obviously do not understand how fakeness can be created from nothing.  AHHHHHH

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#12    cerberus

cerberus

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2002

  • Hello Kitty

Posted 30 August 2002 - 10:51 PM

now i have a headache. :s01     what i don't understand is everything we have to have a beginning, a middle and an end.how can a beginning come from nothing? 'nothing', really doesn't exist either does it?      to state the obvious.....'nothing' is a sum of removed parts totalling zero.you have to have something to take away to get/have nothing. yep i got brainache too!


#13    Ghostboo

Ghostboo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2002
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 October 2002 - 08:54 PM

I'm learning about this in my science class this year.  According to my book, scientists believe that there was a huge chunk of matter in the center of the Universe that was somewhat like a star.  But this object was so small that it couldn't hold so much energy that was being put out and therefore exploded.  Sort of like a supernova, eh?  I think that this &quot;star&quot; wasn't created out of normal material.  Maybe it was created by what little energy there was in the empty space around it.  You know, there was supposedly space around, but nothing like planets.  After it absorbed this energy, it could have made its own energy after that and start shining, and then explode...  That's my theory........  I'm confusing everyone aren't I?

:sdboo

I'm bored all the time and that is why I'm....bored.

-Ghostboo

#14    Bloated Corpse

Bloated Corpse

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2002
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 October 2002 - 10:31 PM

Um, what if there are more planes of existance than the five we know about? One of those planes could have seed this dimension to see what would happen, like a big out of control science product. I'm sure if and when we are able to go out and explore space and experience it first hand we might see how things actually work and obtain a better knowledge base of our surroundings. Doing space reasearch from a planetary base is limited we need to what experiences we have dealt with on Earth, but we can't compare them to what happens in space because space has its own set of rules.

:s6

Wabi Sabi

Wabi-sabi is the quintessential Japanese aesthetic.

It is a beauty of things imperfect, impermanent and incomplete.
It is a beauty of things modest and humble.
It is a beauty of things unconventional.

#15    Dr.Brain

Dr.Brain

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:15 Oct 2002

Posted 08 November 2002 - 05:29 PM

This Question is RHETORICAL .......and cant be dis-assembled...... Hence I think this thread has lost its life-span.....





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users