Will We Know What Came Before the Big Bang Within the Next 50 Years?

[ChristineM]

I think explaining every laws origin as a requirement to a full understanding of the creation of our Universe is an assumption the will loose ground as we know more. Sort of like coming to understand that the Newtonian view of physical reality is immensely practical but still true within limits within an Einsteinian-relativistic view.

We may come to have cause to see the Universe as a flower which has emerged from a partially visible stalk of some sort rather than a fully self-created eruption of everything out of nothing.

In my own meditations I have found no ground for believing that Nothing is a more likely reality than Something and as such no miracle is required for the case of Something.

Example, the laws of thermodynamics did not/could not begin to resolve until after the Planck epoc. We cannot know information before those laws unless an understanding of why and how they break down the closer to the bb we get.

 

[viole]

If you throw something upward it slows and then falls.

How might dark energy cause it to accelerate?

Negative pressure. Leading to repulsive gravitational force. Basically.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The phenomena is mentioned in Quran thus:

[21:31]اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ ﴿۳۱﴾
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 21: Al-Anbiya'

[51:48]وَ السَّمَآءَ بَنَیۡنٰہَا بِاَیۡٮدٍ وَّ اِنَّا لَمُوۡسِعُوۡنَ ﴿۴۸﴾
And We have built the heaven with Our own hands, and verily We have vast powers.*
[51:49]وَ الۡاَرۡضَ فَرَشۡنٰہَا فَنِعۡمَ الۡمٰہِدُوۡنَ ﴿۴۹﴾
And the earth We have spread out, and how excellently do We prepare things!
[51:50]وَ مِنۡ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ خَلَقۡنَا زَوۡجَیۡنِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَذَکَّرُوۡنَ ﴿۵۰﴾
And of everything have We created pairs, that you may reflect.
[51:51]فَفِرُّوۡۤا اِلَی اللّٰہِ ؕ اِنِّیۡ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡہُ نَذِیۡرٌ مُّبِیۡنٌ ﴿ۚ۵۱﴾
Flee ye therefore unto Allah. Surely, I am a plain Warner unto you from Him.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 51: Adh-Dhariyat
*The Arabic word mooseuoon could be translated "and we are expanding it"

Does it help?

Regards

The heavens and the heavens were not a close-up mass. For the simple reason that only the visible universe was reducing to a “point”. Not necessarily the whole universe, since it is very likely infinite.

And the earth was never spread out. That is utter nonsense.

The rest is just equally nonsensical poetry that could be read to explain anything.

A broken watch is also precise twice during the day.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

The heavens and the heavens were not a close-up mass. For the simple reason that only the visible universe was reducing to a “point”. Not necessarily the whole universe, since it is very likely infinite.

And the earth was never spread out. That is utter nonsense.

The rest is just equally nonsensical poetry that could be read to explain anything.

A broken watch is also precise twice during the day.

Ciao

- viole

Why is one in an angry mode, please?

Regards
_____________
Then how do we know that space really is expanding?

"In the late 1920's, the astronomer Edwin Hubble first observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, just as would be expected if the space between galaxies were growing in volume - and just as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. Since then, astronomers have measured this recession for millions of galaxies. But there's other evidence as well.
www.cfa.harvard.edu/

 

[viole]

Why is one in an angry mode, please?

Regards

Why is one clueless about cosmology, please?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Why is one clueless about cosmology, please?
Ciao
- viole

Why is one clueless about Religion, please?
One did not create the Cosmos and or Cosmology, did one, please?

Regards
_____________
Where did the Big Bang scenario come from?

If space (and everything with it) is expanding now, then the universe must have been much denser in the past. That is, all the matter and energy (such as light) that we observe in the universe would have been compressed into a much smaller space in the past. Einstein's theory of gravity enables us to run the "movie" of the universe backwards - i.e., to calculate the density that the universe must have had in the past. The result: any chunk of the universe we can observe - no matter how large - must have expanded from an infinitesimally small volume of space.
www.cfa.harvard.edu/

 

[MJ Bailey]

Scientist Claims He Has Found Evidence Of Other Universes

 

[gnostic]

In my understanding there are many many universes outside of this one

The multiverse is a very theoretical astrophysics model; it is a proof-driven or proof-based model, not evidence-theory (“theory” as “scientific theory”).

Meaning, the multiverse model is untested (and might be untestable), therefore it isn’t science.

Theoretical science, or in this case theoretical physics, are studies that use proof instead of evidence, meaning (theoretical) physicists are trying to solve physics problems with logics and maths (proofs), often with equations. Theoretical physicists tried to give answers by proving or disproving the equations; the solution(s) are abstract.

Experimental science, on the other hand, relies on being able to test falsifiable hypothesis, through “observation”, via finding verifiable evidence or through lab-controlled repeatable experiments.

Observation means evidence that you observe or detect, being able to quantify, measure, test, verify or refute.

Only evidence, not proof, will determine if model or hypothesis is scientifically true or false.

So far, the multiverse is untested, and highly probable that it could be untestable. If that is the case, multiverse model will eventually be deemed to be refuted model or worse, a pseudoscience concept like astrology.

 

[paarsurrey]

The multiverse is a very theoretical astrophysics model; it is a proof-driven or proof-based model, not evidence-theory (“theory” as “scientific theory”).

Meaning, the multiverse model is untested (and might be untestable), therefore it isn’t science.

Theoretical science, or in this case theoretical physics, are studies that use proof instead of evidence, meaning (theoretical) physicists are trying to solve physics problems with logics and maths (proofs), often with equations. Theoretical physicists tried to give answers by proving or disproving the equations; the solution(s) are abstract.

Experimental science, on the other hand, relies on being able to test falsifiable hypothesis, through “observation”, via finding verifiable evidence or through lab-controlled repeatable experiments.

Observation means evidence that you observe or detect, being able to quantify, measure, test, verify or refute.

Only evidence, not proof, will determine if model or hypothesis is scientifically true or false.

So far, the multiverse is untested, and highly probable that it could be untestable. If that is the case, multiverse model will eventually be deemed to be refuted model or worse, a pseudoscience concept like astrology.

"Meaning, the multiverse model is untested (and might be untestable), therefore it isn’t science."

Thanks for this information.

Regards
______________
Search for: Are there many universes? on Google:
"1. Infinite universes. We don't know what the shape of space-time is exactly. One prominent theory is that it is flat and goes on forever. This would present the possibility of many universes being out there. But with that topic in mind, it's possible that universes can start repeating themselves. That's because particles can only be put together in so many ways. More about that in a moment."
Parallel Universes: Theories & Evidence | Space

 

[Polymath257]

How did the universe become low entropy to begin with?

The speculation is that existence is eternally cyclical. From time to time it fluctuates into a low entropy state?

Well, what does it mean to be low entropy?

According to statistical mechanics, it means that there are very few accessible quantum states.

In the case of the very early universe, it is quite possible that there was only *one* quantum state available: that for which no particles and no space exist. When that state 'decayed', it produced more accessible states, which allowed the production of matter and an increase of entropy.

 

[osgart]

Well, what does it mean to be low entropy?

According to statistical mechanics, it means that there are very few accessible quantum states.

In the case of the very early universe, it is quite possible that there was only *one* quantum state available: that for which no particles and no space exist. When that state 'decayed', it produced more accessible states, which allowed the production of matter and an increase of entropy.

Without space and particles what actually exists?

 

[sealchan]

Example, the laws of thermodynamics did not/could not begin to resolve until after the Planck epoc. We cannot know information before those laws unless an understanding of why and how they break down the closer to the bb we get.

After the Planck epoch their emerged a Universe which has asymmetrical features that indicate something about what came before no doubt. Whether that is the ratio of matter to antimatter, the distribution of matter, etc. It may not be much but anything, any arbitrary constant or value is enough to suggest some kind of initial condition that could have been otherwise. And that suggests an order outside of the order that we have some knowledge of.

 

[Polymath257]

Without space and particles what actually exists?

Well, in quantum field theory, there is *still* a wave function that describes that sort of vacuum. Furthermore, there is only one such wave function, which means the entropy is precisely zero.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The multiverse is a very theoretical astrophysics model; it is a proof-driven or proof-based model, not evidence-theory (“theory” as “scientific theory”).

Meaning, the multiverse model is untested (and might be untestable), therefore it isn’t science.

Theoretical science, or in this case theoretical physics, are studies that use proof instead of evidence, meaning (theoretical) physicists are trying to solve physics problems with logics and maths (proofs), often with equations. Theoretical physicists tried to give answers by proving or disproving the equations; the solution(s) are abstract.

Experimental science, on the other hand, relies on being able to test falsifiable hypothesis, through “observation”, via finding verifiable evidence or through lab-controlled repeatable experiments.

Observation means evidence that you observe or detect, being able to quantify, measure, test, verify or refute.

Only evidence, not proof, will determine if model or hypothesis is scientifically true or false.

So far, the multiverse is untested, and highly probable that it could be untestable. If that is the case, multiverse model will eventually be deemed to be refuted model or worse, a pseudoscience concept like astrology.

For the most part in life i do not follow science, but i follow the teaching of the Buddha. So even science has not yet "tools" to "see" other universes we can gain wisdom from the religious texts about it and understand that there is a lot of science do not yet know or understand.

 

[ChristineM]

After the Planck epoch their emerged a Universe which has asymmetrical features that indicate something about what came before no doubt. Whether that is the ratio of matter to antimatter, the distribution of matter, etc. It may not be much but anything, any arbitrary constant or value is enough to suggest some kind of initial condition that could have been otherwise. And that suggests an order outside of the order that we have some knowledge of.

'tiz a mystery, which may someday be resolved. Or may not

 

[sealchan]

'tiz a mystery, which may someday be resolved. Or may not

It is certain fun to watch as the process continues...there was a time in my life when I worked toward active involvement...my first two years in college were as a Math and Physics major.

 

[viole]

Why is one clueless about Religion, please?
One did not create the Cosmos and or Cosmology, did one, please?

Regards
_____________
Where did the Big Bang scenario come from?

If space (and everything with it) is expanding now, then the universe must have been much denser in the past. That is, all the matter and energy (such as light) that we observe in the universe would have been compressed into a much smaller space in the past. Einstein's theory of gravity enables us to run the "movie" of the universe backwards - i.e., to calculate the density that the universe must have had in the past. The result: any chunk of the universe we can observe - no matter how large - must have expanded from an infinitesimally small volume of space.
www.cfa.harvard.edu/

Yes, as i said, the Universe we can observe. Aka the observable universe.

Not necessarily the whole Universe, that is very likely infinite, and therefore not reducible to a point in finite time. At least according to latest observations about its grand scale curvature, and the above mentioned theory of general relativity.

I like it when people rebut with things that make my point. Which happens often, when people do not even completely grasp the consequences of what they post.

Why you guys do that is a mystery. It would be like me pontificating about medieval Chinese art, while having not the slightest clue about medieval Chinese art.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

For the most part in life i do not follow science, but i follow the teaching of the Buddha. So even science has not yet "tools" to "see" other universes we can gain wisdom from the religious texts about it and understand that there is a lot of science do not yet know or understand.

Sure, there are some things that science cannot explain and some things they cannot test (eg find evidence for), and I don’t doubt there are limitations to science knowledge.

Science don’t have every answers, but at least the answers they do seek to investigate, are only accepted if they can rigorously tested, or if they can discover sufficient evidence.

But there are some things that religions or philosophies don’t have knowledge of, and don’t have understanding of some things.

Any scientist, philosopher, prophet or disciple who think or believe that their respective knowledge are complete, inerrant or have no mystery left, they are nothing more than egotistic and biased fools.

Between science on one side, and philosophy and religion on the other side, of the two, only religions and (most) philosophies deal with absolutes.

With science, any accepted theories, past or present, can be replaced by better alternative theories, but only if the empirical and testable evidence support the newer theories.

I am actually fine with science not being able to answer everything. And I am fine with science having limitations.

But even if science does get the theory wrong, doesn’t mean any religion or philosophy got it right, by default.

 

[exchemist]

So what is causing the acceleration?

It seems to me that if the "big bang" fails to address the facts AND is counterintuitive it might be time to jettison it.

This isn't to say it didn't exist (perhaps all the missing matter is beyond the universe) merely that the hypothesis does a poor job of addressing the facts.

However the big bang theory is neither. It does address the facts (the observed red shift and the cosmic background radiation) and is not really counterintuitive. Though science is chock-full of counterintuitive concepts so that is a lousy criterion for dismissing something anyway.

What is unexplained is the apparent acceleration of the expansion, not the expansion per se. The time to jettison the big bang hypothesis will be when there is evidence that conflicts with it. Acceleration does not conflict with it. It just means there seems to be an additional unexplained feature, i.e. the model needs further development.

 

[sealchan]

Pretty darn interesting video dealing with entropy, the arrow of time, and the origin and future of the universe....

Comments?

Finally had a chance to watch...good stuff. I think that once we accept that all things in nature share a commonality which can be described as its "systemic" nature, then there are, at the greatest and smallest scales, many familiar signs that the Universe itself emerged out of a background which contained some qualities that show, in an arbitrary way, in the character of what we can observe.

The term Universe will then "mature" from a synonym for "the set of all things" into a more specific formulation. The Universe will become a flower that grows from a dimly visible stalk rather than a self-created thing...although, I will say this, perhaps the Universe as a container in which we have become and in which we can observe is itself as much an invention of our minds and as such any rational explanation will be such that we will mostly be satisfied in our knowledge if we see the Universe more and more as a self-created thing. If we don't see it as a self-created thing then we will be dissatisfied with our knowledge. The trick is to come to a point where we decide (co-create) the Universe as a specific thing against the background that we are just now teasing out.

Divergent thoughts follow...

This arrow of rationality then is to see the Universe as a separate entity sufficient unto itself. This is the "separative" mode of consciousness that wants to create an ego, a center of awareness, in terms of a hierarchy of power or knowledge and leave little room outside of that for challenge. But it seems that balancing that bias is the "cooperative" mode of consciousness that sees everything as a collaboration of knowledge or power and "surfs" that in a way that is mindful of one's place within that greater web of interactions. This is the arrow of irrationality where gaps in rational cognition AND simple acts of perceptions in that same cognitive system give rise to the "just so" nature of our reality pulling the strings of rationality apart that have tied themselves into knots we call mystery.

Science straddles the line between consistent theory and sincere experience. This makes of science a dynamic, progressive enterprise rather than a stagnant and diminishing one.