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

#31    j6p

j6p

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2003

Posted 01 February 2003 - 04:52 AM

                                                Nice work on the poem
But I fail to see how it all ties together. You said "Out of nothing did it appear?" Are you suggesting entropy is the result of Virtual Energy?, or am I misunderstanding you?
********************************************************************
I am using the term entropy in the context as defined in description
#2 in the Websters New World Dictionary: "A measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or system: entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a closed system, as the universe."
I'll explain later how this action may pave the way to energy creation.
********************************************************************
Quantum mechanics states anything infinitesimal(particles) cannot remain in our universe for long, and pops in and out of existence within the time that light requires to traverse its tiny sphere. So perhaps particles aren't created, as in VP, but are just changing state. From virtual particle to actual particle to virtual etc. etc. until it either gets annihilated with it's polar opposite, or combines with more particles to actually create something that lasts
.
***********************************************************
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
***************************************************
The above article would explain how a VP can become a real particle by an extremely fast expansion.
The problem I see with their treatment is when it's mentioned that the big bang is a concentration of gravity. I believe it takes mass for gravity to exist.
I do believe that the vacuum expansion caused and is continuing to cause energy to be created and this is followed by
matter creation. That is what I mean by Ve=E.
********************************************************************
This would mean that there is an finite number of particles and virtual particles. When VP get annihilated, it turns into energy, thus changing state again. Meaning that ALL particles(including virtual particles), whether they have mass or not, and ALL energy, are finite and tied together to create balance.

Now entropy would suggest decaying, as if there is no balance. ***The entropy I am referring to is the entropy of a vacuum.*** But just like old forests of this planet, it gets old, decays, perhaps burns down, and starts over again. So entropy could be nothing more than the recycling of the old to make way for the new. If this is the case, there would still be no creation of new particles or energy, but the existing ones changing state. ***I like your analogy to a burnt forest. That would compare to my model like this: The forest is surrounded by a vacuum, the forest burns and the surrounding vacuum moves in. The vacuum expands - energy is created.***

Just a thought
********************************************************************
Now to make it clear this is what I see, how something comes out of nothing: The vacuum of space expands increasing the volume of the vacuum. This expansion creates energy. The VP's, strings, branes or whatever they want to say existed before the big bang are caused by this expansion and not the other way around. I would like to add that I don't totally buy into the big bang either. I see it as a stretching of space (again the vacuum) and this matter, our physical universe, pops into existence by the above process.
So much more to discuss, we are only scratching the surface.

                                                


#32    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

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

Posted 01 February 2003 - 07:10 AM

                                                Where to begin...
First of all, I understand what entropy is, and used it correctly in my example. Our examples were different, but the fundamental meaning of entropy remains the same.

So your theory suggests that vacuum expansion created energy which created the particles before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang is really just a stretching of space(vacuum), and that stretching(expansion) created our physical universe by creating energy and particles etc etc.

The problem I have with your theory is that evidence suggests that the Big Bang started from a single point. By measuring the red shifts of galaxies and galaxy clusters, the conclusion must be made that the matter and energy within these galaxies originated at a single point as well. The universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating. Surely the energy required to push this amount of matter this far into the vacuum would require a centralized explosion such as the Big Bang.

Dark Energy may be the reason this expansion hasn't stopped accelerating, but in my opinion it would take a centralized explosion to start the process. This would contradict your theory, because yours suggests that particles are created from the expansion of vacuum energy. If that were the case, there would be no centralized point of origin. Meaning there would be no Big Bang. If this were the case, then why are the galaxies accelerating pretty much uniformly away from each other in such a manner that they came from the same point? Are you suggesting that when the expansion of vacuum energy creates  matter/particles, this energy gives it gives it a great big push? A push with enough force to keep it accelerating for over 15 billion years?

I'm not buying it due to the current arrangements of galaxy clusters and their red shifts. The evidence supports a single point of origin, which is the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that there was nothing before it. Now if vacuum expansion created energy and particles before the Big Bang, as your thoery goes, they would have had to come together, like in a singularity, to create the Big Bang.

If I misunderstand your points, let me know

                                                

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#33    j6p

j6p

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2003

Posted 01 February 2003 - 08:01 PM

                                                Homer....I am sick. I just got home and heard about our space shuttle and the loss of the entire crew. My mind reels and my heart is heavy. I hope and look forward to us continuing our conversation soon but for now I can't think straight. I hope that you and your family find comfort in each others company as my family is. God Bless...                                                


#34    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

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

Posted 02 February 2003 - 05:44 AM

                                                Thank you j6p,

I hope you and your family finds comfort as well                                                

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#35    Bizarro

Bizarro

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2002
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 February 2003 - 06:30 AM

                                                am i the only one who is glad to have someone like J6p hanging around this place?  smile.gif                                                

if there was a meteor,
adrift amongst space,
set about on a collision course
not with Earth, but my face...
i wonder if id even know,
at what time i might,
be passed off like an old style
and by the meteor be smite?

- me, 1997

#36    Kismit

Kismit

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,680 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2001
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New zealand

Posted 02 February 2003 - 09:25 AM

                                                  

I would like to say that I am sorry about the loss of the space shuttle crew
also,
Homer and Jp6 thank you for  providing so much fuel for my brain.
                                                  


#37    j6p

j6p

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2003

Posted 02 February 2003 - 08:06 PM

                                                Hello Homer, I hope you and our other friends here are well today. Hello Kismet and DSchwartz

I'd like to start off by explaining  that I have a problem with some words. The reason I start with this statement is because I would like to bring up the problem that we, as human beings, have in describing stuff, especially technical stuff.
Don't misunderstand me when I go to the dictionary to lay down a word meaning on you, I do this to let you know where my point of reference stems from and also to let you know when I have a different take on the meaning of a word or phrase. Hence my treatment of the word entropy. With that said I would like to relate how I interpret Infinity. I view the universe as infinite and geometrically adding a point of reference to infinity I loose true meaning, at least in the context of which we are talking. Simply put there is no point of reference in the universe it is boundless.
With this in mind I hope that you see what I mean when I say that matter pops into existence as the universe expands. I see no centralized point for a single "big bang" to have happened rather I see many bangs that are all being carried away from each other along with the expansion, this also would account for the red shift.
The "dots on a balloon" illustration was a good way of describing how the universe is expanding, it looks good but it also leaves the wrong impression. I believe that our minds cause us to look at that balloon for what it is and in doing that we are naturally guided to see a surface and an area outside of this surface. Thats not how it works, it's a good model to show expansion of a one dimensional surface but there are three dimensions in the real universe and there is no outside. I didn't include the fourth dimension, that being time, because it doesn't have any bearing on our conversation at this point.
Time, thats a whole nudder subject that hurts my head... wacko.gif                                                


#38    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 February 2003 - 03:34 PM

                                                j6p,

I agree with some of what you say, but respectfully disagree with you on others. This is what I believe, and keep in mind, it’s not a fact or theory, but a belief.

I believe in an eternal God that is the creator of the universe. I believe that all particles and matter and energy was created by God. I believe God either created the Big Bang, or set in motion that which would make it happen. I believe that God created the universe by design, and not accident. I believe that all particles, matter, energy etc etc that would ever be in the universe was already in the universe as of the Big Bang. I will speak of nothing prior to the Big Bang, since I have no thought on that.

Ok, to make it all work, I believe that all things can change state. For example, you say that particles are created from the energy caused by expansion. I won’t argue with that, since I believe particles “pop up” for some reason and by some process. But…I believe that it came from something, and not from nothing. Meaning I don’t believe anything is created out of nothing.

So…particles can turn into energy(which is fact), and this remains energy until it’s state is changed into a particle. So when a particle “pops up”, it is because the energy that popped it up had itself turned into energy from a particle. The cycle, in my opinion, can continue for eternity. Nothing new has been added or subtracted from the universe, only the changing of it’s form.

Since the Big Bang, and especially in the early years of the universe, there was an enormous amount of energy as matter was being blown from the ‘bang’. Many of these matter turned into energy through annihilation, and this energy could either remain as energy(Dark Energy to continue the expansion) or at some point in time pop up as particles. Sort of a recycling.

Again, this is my belief. My belief in God the creator is unwavering, and my belief in the recycling process can be changed as additional evidence presents itself.
                                                

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#39    j6p

j6p

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2003

Posted 03 February 2003 - 11:35 PM

                                                Homer, my opinion is that your belief is based on sound reason. I rarely talk religion or politics  but I will make an exception here, briefly.
First of all I am a Catholic. I was born, raised and educated in the Catholic faith but now I find myself at odds with about 93% of their teachings. The Nuns of Our Lady of the Rosary and the Priests and Brothers of St.Tommy(Thomas)Moore high school taught me well. They slapped, smacked, whacked, threatened and just plain scared the living shit out of us kids into believing in God.....their God. So yes Homer I too believe in God but I'll have nothing to do with any organized religion. I've heard it said that man created God....nah, man created religion.
Now with that said  I will add that unlike the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, I can't believe that we weren't intended to know the secrets of the universe. I was taught, (usually with a whack across the knuckles) "don't ask, don't question God. They are "Divine Mysteries" and shouldn't be questioned." ------ Bullshit.
You see I truly believe that God wants us to know how He did it and thats what I am going after. I want to know how.
As a foot note to my above rant I want to say the following: 1st - I apologize for going off, thats why I don't talk religion. My beliefs are strong and non-debatable.
2nd - I refer to God as "He" because I am most comfortable with that, I am not gender bias. I accept God being referred to as HE - She - It -  etc. as long as it's done with respect. Oddly though I am also at ease with folks who truly do not believe in God, My Deity made me to accept that all are His children.

Homer, That vacuum I referred to many times?   I suspect it is caused by God removing Himself from the equation. I offered "Ve=E" as my short explanation of creation I'll now offer the way it should have read: "(-G)>Ve=E". The (-G) would be minus Gods presence.  
The way I see it is that God is everywhere and eternal. The only way to get a void is for God to remove Himself from a part of the "everywhere". That would leave a vacuum.


                                                


#40    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 February 2003 - 05:43 AM

                                                j6p
No apologies needed. From what I got from your discussion, you had a miserable experience with religion. I don't like organized religion either, and don't associate myself with any. I meant to leave religion alone, so whether someone wants to say God, Creator, Spirit, Deity, Life Force etc. etc. it would mean the same thing for the sake of this discussion.

That's an interesting equation you have there, by the way biggrin.gif                                                

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#41    Test_Bear

Test_Bear

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined:11 Jan 2002
  • Location:United States, VT, Marlboro, Marlboro College

Posted 04 February 2003 - 05:46 AM

                                                From a PHILISOPHICAL point of view, I'd be willing to agree that seeing the universe, or rather, what is beyond it, could kill someone. After all, people die of fright and suffer massive mental trauma and shock from the unexpected or traumatic often... to truely see how massive the universe is and how small we are...?

I'd love to be amongst the first generations of psychologists when massive space travel begins...  biggrin.gif                                                

"If I laugh at any human thing 'tis so I do not weep."     -Lord Byron

#42    SPAC3MAN

SPAC3MAN

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2003
  • Location:OUTER SPACE

Posted 06 March 2003 - 04:43 AM

QUOTE (Homer @ Apr 29 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 ???

                                                  yes. the bigbang is triggered  by another supernova-colliding with each other. but this is not how the whole universe begun. this is how our constellation Milkyway  belived to have been originated.  Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang -  parellel dimentions collides, supernova explodes, the birth of a new star, &  the ever ellussive existense pf the blackholes. All these  are so called normal activities in the cosmos.

ph34r.gif  blink.gif  laugh.gif                                                  


#43    SPAC3MAN

SPAC3MAN

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2003
  • Location:OUTER SPACE

Posted 06 March 2003 - 05:34 AM

                                                  Hmmmnn..... about einstein's theory of the "absulot vacuum of space" it means & its a fact (look it up CNN or Spacejournal) the vacuum  which einstien described is not pulling objects in the vastness of space, but rather expanding in an absulot speed. it is moving far -far away from each other- forever expanding the universe. The theory of 3dimentional space was been a hard ache-aching task to prove /xplain wut he really meant: but lately physicist  xplains that Einstien 3dimentional space is really FLAT.  and oh yes light travels in a straight path. But in a 3dimentional -flat space, Straight path is not travellimg from point   A------2--------B. buT bending space time continuem from A 2 B. Its a simple rule yet so complex. - + look it up! we are forever expanding, somehow some force  is pulling all the galaxies together from pole 2 pole. but not into fusion with each other but rather pulling them appart. A whole new dawn of man's search for its place in the cosmos. OUR SEARCH FOR THE UNSEEN FORCE.  

(this is not in contrast to others post. its just my side of the story)
pls. xcuse my poor spelling  ph34r.gif
im 17- eating physics for breakfast..                                                  


#44    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

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

Posted 06 March 2003 - 10:25 PM

                                                  Spaceman,
The big bang theory is thought to be the point where all the matter in the universe started from a single point, then exploded outward. A supernova is an exploding massive star. One can’t have a star without a universe, so the big bang could not have been the result of a supernova.

"Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang”
Where is the proof? I think you are either misinformed or a liar. There are no free rides on this forum, because I won’t allow it. I’m not saying our universe DIDN’T exist before the big bang, but I’m saying it is not a known fact. Where is the proof about parallel dimensions? And if the big bang wasn’t the beginning, then how do you know it was OUR universe that was before it?

“parellel dimentions collides, supernova explodes, the birth of a new star, & the ever ellussive existense pf the blackholes. All these are so called normal activities in the cosmos.”
Since when did parallel dimensions become an activity? And except for parallel dimensions, we all know the other things mentioned are normal activities in the cosmos, but what does that have to do with the big bang and before?                                                  

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#45    Guest_KATSUNARI_*

Guest_KATSUNARI_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 March 2003 - 11:37 PM

                                                  there is an on going  study about the existence of a much older Universe.  i have to disagree with you HOMER.  nothing's wrong with what spaceman trying to imply.

i find this impunderable.                                                  





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users