If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen bitch.
Monday Morning Musings
Posted 10-17-2016 at 08:03 AM by bleonav06
So as of now the current accepted theory of how the universe was created is known as the big bang theory. It states that the universe basically exploded from an object of infinite mass and infinite density called a singularity and the universe came to be from that. But how did this singularity come to be? And how can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is correct? That is quite difficult. I was pondering this while eating a cinnamon roll in the cafe while I was supposed to be studying for my psych exam today, but I could not focus on the psych until I thought this through. Perhaps there was a supermassive black hole that collapsed and the singularity in the center of that formed the universe. But then why did this singularity expand. I then considered, what does it mean to be before something? It means that on a timeline it would precede the other thing. But before the big bang time did not exist so how can it be measured? It can't. Scientists have gotten a model of the universe as early as 10^-36 seconds after the big bang but are not qualified enough yet to know what happened earlier. We need to improve on our knowledge of gravity in tiny spaces. And everything done in the field is just speculation at this point but hopefully one of those predictions can spark an idea that can help us discover what happened and I hope to maybe be one of the people that helps do this.
Total Comments 5
Comments
-
"And how can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is correct? That is quite difficult." We can't, but why would we need to. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof in a criminal trial. If we could reach a similar conclusive resolution to this it would be consider a "law" ie the "law of physics" or the "law of gravity" rather than a "theory."
Both science and religion waste way too much time and energy trying to find the answer to this. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? We're here now, shouldn't we focus on that and what the future may hold instead?
That being said, I do suppose if we had more concrete answers about the beginning, it may provide some insight into the future.Posted 10-17-2016 at 08:33 PM by atownesq 
-
We actually know a lot about the future (or so we think most is theoretical). Its hard to determine a beginning because technically it isnt a beginning. Its nonexistance on the spacetime continuim means it never actually happened at a recorded time. Time didnt exist until this. So it did not happen before so we have no idea how to handle that yetQuote:Originally Posted by atownesq
"And how can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is correct? That is quite difficult." We can't, but why would we need to. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof in a criminal trial. If we could reach a similar conclusive resolution to this it would be consider a "law" ie the "law of physics" or the "law of gravity" rather than a "theory."
Both science and religion waste way too much time and energy trying to find the answer to this. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? We're here now, shouldn't we focus on that and what the future may hold instead?
That being said, I do suppose if we had more concrete answers about the beginning, it may provide some insight into the future.Posted 10-17-2016 at 08:46 PM by bleonav06
-
Time seems linear to us because of the way we experience it. Imagine a cookie �� sliding down a play ground slide. That cookie is unable to halt the forward momentum. That cookie is experiencing a spatial dimension the same way we experience the temporal dimension. It's only because we experience time locked in a certain momentum we can't stop, that we assume it needs to have a start and and an end.
Big bang couldn't have been an explosion, because there was nothing for the universe to explode in to. Instead, it was an expansion in all spatial and temporal dimensions. In the same way that the singularity did not have a height, width, or depth, it did not have time, until the expansion began. It was the expansion that pushed everything in to that forward momentum along the temporal axis. Since time did not exist before the expansion, there was nothing before the expansion, in the same way that there was nothing above, below or behind the singularity.
That's my understanding. Hope it makes sense.Posted 10-20-2016 at 07:30 AM by Runesmith
-
It makes sense, but lets continue with this cookie analogy. If the cookie is the singularity that caused it, then what caused the cookie to move down the slide and start the process?Quote:Originally Posted by Runesmith
Time seems linear to us because of the way we experience it. Imagine a cookie �� sliding down a play ground slide. That cookie is unable to halt the forward momentum. That cookie is experiencing a spatial dimension the same way we experience the temporal dimension. It's only because we experience time locked in a certain momentum we can't stop, that we assume it needs to have a start and and an end.
Big bang couldn't have been an explosion, because there was nothing for the universe to explode in to. Instead, it was an expansion in all spatial and temporal dimensions. In the same way that the singularity did not have a height, width, or depth, it did not have time, until the expansion began. It was the expansion that pushed everything in to that forward momentum along the temporal axis. Since time did not exist before the expansion, there was nothing before the expansion, in the same way that there was nothing above, below or behind the singularity.
That's my understanding. Hope it makes sense.
And did the singularity not have height width or depth? Because if it had infinite mass and infinite density then it had to occupy some, granted almost negligible, space which means it had some sort of physical dimensions.
Also where did the singularity come from? What caused that to be created?Posted 10-20-2016 at 09:10 AM by bleonav06
-
The cookie and slide analogy was only meant to illustrate the feeling of inexorability of the passage of time. It can't be taken any further.
The thing is, the passage of time is due to the expansion of the temporal dimension from that singularity. Just as the singularity expanded in to the three spatial dimensions, it also expanded in to the temporal dimension.
In the cookie and slide analogy, it is gravity that pulls the cookie along. In the case of the singularity, it is entropy.
By definition, a singularity is zero dimensional. The mass was contained in a zero width, zero height and zero depth volume, which made the density infinite. Even the smallest spatial volume makes the density finite. It was actually the transition from that infinitely dense, non dimensional state to a finite density state with dimensions that we call the big bang.
As to "when" the singularity originated - are you familiar with Zeno's paradox of "Achilles and the tortoise?" The thing is, before we get to that zero point of origin, there will be an even smaller step after each step. In that sense, the origin point of the singularity does not exist. It can't exist, because time didn't exist until it made the transition from a dimensionless state to a dimensional state.
Am I making sense?Posted 10-21-2016 at 12:45 PM by Runesmith
