What happened before the Big Bang? Does that question even make sense?
When astronomers think about the Big Bang, in general they don’t actually mean that one singular moment when the Universe burst into being. It’s really the name given to the model used to describe what happened an infinitesimally thin slice of time after that moment.
The problem is, right at that moment, at T=0, our laws of physics… well, they stall out. You wind up dividing by zero a lot, which causes a lot of headaches. You get things like zero volume and infinite density of matter and energy. It’s not that this moment didn’t exist physically, or that something impossible happened, it’s just that the math we currently use can’t describe it. And let me be clear: what happened after that one moment we can model fairly well. We may not have a complete picture, and the model may yet be supplanted (more on that in a moment), but we have a relatively (har har) good grasp on how the Universe behaved after T=+0.0000000000000…1 seconds. But at T=0, fuggeddaboutit. And T<0? The way the math works, that question doesn’t even make sense.
The basic trouble is that Einstein’s relativity gives us a good description of some things (large scale gravity, for example), and quantum mechanics tells us about other things (how particles behave), but no one has ever successfully combined the two, and they must be combined to understand that First Nanonanonanonanonanosecond. Einstein himself tried, and failed.
It’s possible, now, that this has changed.
Martin Bojowald, an assistant professor of physics at Penn State University, may have broken through this barrier for the first time. He is working on a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, and it combines relativity and quantum mechanics. Using this new math, something amazing happens: at T=0, the volume of the Universe is not zero, and the density is not infinite.
In other words, the math still works, even at The Big Moment.
Loop Quantum Gravity has been around a while, but Bojowald appears to have simplified it, using different mathematical terminology. This allows solutions to be determined for what was, before, an intractable problem. And what his solution reveals is something that’s… well, it’s astonishing.
It’s been thought for sometime that there may have been some previous Universe that existed "before" ours. This is a difficult idea, because in the Big Bang model, space and time were created in that initial moment. But if Bojowald’s solutions are correct, it leads the way to understanding this previous Universe. It was out there, everywhere, and it contracted. Eventually it became an ultradense, ultrahot little ball of space and time. At some point, it got so small and so dense that bizarre quantum laws took effect — things like the Uncertainty Principle, which states that the more you know about one characteristic of an object (say, its position) the less you know about another (its velocity). There are several such laws, and they make it hard — impossible, really — to know everything about the universe at that moment.
What Bojowald’s work does, as I understand it (the paper as I write this is not out yet, so I am going by my limited knowledge of LQG and other theories like it) is simplify the math enough to be able to trace some properties of the Universe backwards, right down to T=0, which he calls the Big Bounce. The previous Universe collapsed down, and "bounced" outward again, forming our Universe. No doubt the physical aspects of this previous Universe were somewhat different; the quantum uncertainties at the moment of bounce would ensure that. It may have been much like ours, or it may have been quite alien. In his equations, it’s the volume of that previous Universe that cannot be determined. How big was it? It may literally be impossible to ever know.
In a sense, this uncertainty wipes the slate clean after a Universe crunches back down.
I want to stress that all of this is very interesting, and may possibly be borne out to be a better solution to the real physical situation of the Universe than anything we have now. Or, let’s face it: it might all eventually be tossed into the toilet. It’s a bit early to know. But it’s fascinating, and provides a glimpse into the future of cosmology, where we may not be limited by the one singular Universe in which we live. Another theory, called Brane Theory, is similar– it posits that there are other Universes as well, and they, well, they bounce back and forth, colliding every few hundred billion or trillion years. And that’s not even the weird part of brane theory… it might be able to explain dark matter and dark energy, and why our Universe appears to be accelerating. It’s well beyond what I can write for this blog entry (though it’ll be in my next book, heh heh). There is plenty of info on it on the web if you’re interested (here’s a good page to start you off).
Also, and what’s perhaps most exciting about these theories, is that they make predictions, predictions which can be verified or falsified based on observations. These are delicate experiments to be sure, but some will be possible to perform in just the next few years (for example, different cosmological origin theories predict different behaviors for the Universe at very early times, and these would imprint themselves on objects which can be observed).
These theories may seem like mumbo-jumbo or magic, but they have that very basic property of science: they’re testable.
And of course, I have to use this to stick it to the creationists once again. One thing they love to talk about is "fine tuning", how so many physical constants (like the charge on an electron, and the strength of gravity and the nuclear forces) appear to be incredibly well-adjusted to produce not just our Universe, but intelligent life in it: us.
Well, some of us.
The creationists claim that the only way this could possibly happen is if some sort of Intelligent Designer — and let’s not be coy, they mean God — set these values to be precisely what they are. Even just on its merits this isn’t right. I talked about this in the video clip I posted last week, so I won’t elaborate here. Go watch it.
But now we see another answer to the creationists: maybe this isn’t the only Universe. There might have been a string of them, reaching back in time, in meta-time beyond time. In those other Universes, maybe the electron had more charge, and stars couldn’t form. Or maybe it had less, and every star collapsed into a black hole. But if you get enough Universes, and the constants change in each one, then eventually one will get the mix right. Stars will last for billions of years, planets can form, life can evolve, and on one blue green ball of dust, chemicals can get complicated enough that they could look inside themselves, understand what they see, and marvel at the very fact of their own existence.
And maybe, just maybe, they can also figure out how it all came to be. This isn’t fantasy, folks, it’s science. It’s how things work.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Fantastic post, very enlightening on whats happening on the edge of physics. As interesting as the evidence and observations are alone, your rhetoric adds to the already emince excitement. Can’t wait to read more
July 1st, 2007 at 9:27 am
Those interested in more technicalities can search for LQG in John Baez’ This Week’s Finds, or in the notes to his long-running quantum gravity seminar.
I’m sure he’ll be speaking up on this development soon enough, either in TWF or over at The n-Category Café.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:40 am
So, the Big Bang was equivelent to shaking an Etch-A-Sketch?
Wicked awesome.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:52 am
Really fine writing! Thanks.
It also made me wonder if black holes could be miniature models for the early universe with a different kind of bounce just before the theory leads us into a singularity.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:02 am
Let me be the first to say:
> Another theory, called Brane Theory
Brane and brane — What is brane?
Wildride
July 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am
When I read this I wondered if you (Phil) have seen the documentary “The Elegant Universe” where Brane (short for Membrane) theory is discussed in detail. They took a kind of MTV on acid visual approach but still, I thought it was pretty well done. I would like to hear (read) your thoughts on this work, Dr. Plait :o)
July 1st, 2007 at 10:22 am
Can you post the paper, if it’s out and possible? That would be very cool, as is this article! Well done and thanks very much!
July 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Fascinating stuff. It is, perhaps, somewhat poignant that our habitable instance of the Universe may well be the last one in a long (infinite?) line of instances. After all, with dark energy accelerating the expansion of space/time, it’s hard to see how there could be another “Big Bounce” billions or even trillions of years into our future.
One could even go all quasi-religious and talk about how the Universe has sacrificed its own vitality and longevity so that we all could live… er… maybe not.
But it probably means that we won’t be seeing the last of the fine-tuning crowd any time soon. After all, it won’t matter to them that the knobs were twiddled more than once before we got to this point.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
[…] of Wisconsin Link to Article penn state university What happened before the Big Bang? » Posted at Bad […]
July 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Very interesting. I had a similar, simplistic idea of what the paper said.
Question: The universe is expanding, or is it just going “around the bend”
to come together in another Big Bounce?
Just a rank amateur with some far out thoughts.
Ed
July 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Phil is being a Klingon Bastard. Teasing us with his next book:(.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I love this kind of stuff. Never thought that there might have been previous universes, and possibly, another universe after ours. O.O Thanks for posting.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I recall that James Blish used this exact scenario (Big Bounce…although he didn’t use that term) at the end of his Cities in Flight series; so I assume this notion has indeed been bouncing (intentional) around a while. Fascinating stuff!
July 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
So, the idea is that our universe was created out of the rebound of a previous universe collapsing? Interesting stuff!
What i’m wondering, though, is how that relates to the fate of our current universe. I thought they had figured out recently that our universe is doomed to expand indefinately; would that make us the last universe? I dunno, seems fishy.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Is Bojowald really the first with taking the barrier of the Big Bang? April 2006 Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski and Parmpreet Singh from the ‘Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry’ (Penn State University) also used Quantum Loop Gravity to describe the Big Bang to the very moment of T=0. See: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0602/0602086.pdf.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I wrote something about this here:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
The real problem with all such models is that, from the point of view of the other side of the bounce, the entropy is decreasing as the universe collapses, which seems crazily finely-tuned. Either that, or the entropy is at a minimum at the bounce, for no especially good reason.
Singularities are going to have to be resolved somehow, but reality is likely to be quite a bit more complicated than simple bounce models.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
[…] Here’s a primer on “brane” theory about multiple dimension cosmology at Science News Online and then HERE is a bit about what happened before the Big Bang at “Bad Astronomy” blog. […]
July 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Perhaps it should be clarified that what’s being conjoined with quantum mechanics in such a scheme is general relativity, whereas special relativity has been successfully integrated with QM for just about 80 years, i.e., the origin of intrinsic spin-angular momentum.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Thanks. Now I have a headache.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The concept of multiple universes will not stop the Creationists. Recently, there was an opinion piece in the York (PA) Daily Record/Sunday News by their favorite Intelligent Design correspondent that claimed ID, even though supernatural in nature, is not necessarily religious, and furthermore, the Intelligent Designer (who just possibly might be the writer’s God) could dwell in one of those “other” universes. (Discussed at The Divine Afflatus).
July 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
If the universe “bounces”, wouldn’t it mean that not everything collapses to the same point at the same time? Here’s an example: let’s imagine a one-dimensional universe. An explosion happens at location 0, sending matter in two directions. Eventually, you have matter at locations -5, -2, 2, and 5. Later, the whole thing collapses, bringing all the matter back to location 0 at the same time. BUT, what if we assume a slightly more complex universe - where secondary explosions and forces affect things. Let’s say that matter at locations -5 and 5 have secondary explosions or local forces that send out matter in both directions. The matter at location 5 that is sent in the negative direction will pass through location zero *before* the big crunch, and the matter at location 5 that is sent in the positive direction will pass through location zero *after* the big crunch. What this means is that the “big crunch” doesn’t involve the collapse of the entire universe to size 0 - rather the universe shrinks to a small size (perhaps to size 4 - i.e. ranging from locations -2.0 to 2.0) before the expansion occurs again. Also, wouldn’t this situation cause a progressively larger “big crunch” over several oscillations? Would this situation involve the changing of quantum laws as Phil pointed out, or is the universe fail to shrink far enough to cause that? Any comments?
July 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Sean Carroll:
Clearly, the entropy of our Local Universe decreases at the bounce while being compensated by increased entropy elsewhere in the 10D brane gas.
By the way, people should check out creationist linguistics.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Its a fascinating idea. It’s good to see the maths solidifying some of these theories. Just one question though. When you ridicule ‘creationists’, which I totally understand, as most of their ideas are like swiss cheese, does it also mean that anyone that believes in God, and at the same time believes in the power of science and stuff like the big bang and how it works, are the same people ?
I find it hard to discredit anyones personal beliefs if those beliefs are untestable, IE .. straight old belief in God, and that no matter how it works, the belief that he/she has a hand in it.
I’m really just suggesting that not all people that believe in the possibility of creation by a higher force, believe in the rediculous claims ‘creationists’ make.
I am an amatuer astronomer (20 y), I love science, I have a great faith in the ability of scientists, and I will rarely question their collective judgement as they know what they are talking about. Sometimes however I wonder if ‘creationist’ means anyone that has a belief in God, or if its those that argue against clear science?
July 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
What generated the matter or electrons or anything in existence to have caused the big bang? Is there a scientific explanation for the creation of matter ex nihilo or does science believe that matter always existed? Can matter be infinite in time and space? Don’t all things that have and end also have a beginning?
I’d very much appreciate any replies.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I pretty sure .. as a lay-person … the model of this sort of ‘big bang’ is some sort of infinitely fluctuating universe: a cycle. It would suggest, I rekon that it’s infinite and has no beginning or end, but just keeps going through a process, much along the lines of the water cycle on earth. Water had a beginning but I think the analogy might fit. It’s not a new hypothesis, but its good to see some maths backing it up into a solid theory.
One question. With the other popular theory of the Big Bang having no time before it, as its clearly just not possible, does it suggest with this new theory, that time also had NO beginning ? In that case, time would be an infinite thing also ? So matter(energy) and time would under this theory, be part of the infinite cycle. Of course the matter at the crunch point would break down into smaller energy quanta, and then be rebuilt in the ensuing expansion.
Is this just the old argument of ‘is the Universe infinite or finite’, that Einstein argued about with his peers years ago ? Of course the maths is far more solid now, just wondering if its similar.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Qd,
The BA does a pretty good job of distinguishing between the bad ideas that are often linked to religion and the religions themselves. Although some readers may be less tolerant, I think for the most part it is accepted that people like us can hold our (untestable) religious beliefs while still being rational, scientifically literate human beings. I happen to be a professional scientist (space physicist), and I’ve never had a problem either due to my religious beliefs or from others because of them.
Personally, I think that Young Earth Creationism and other forms of anti-science are very bad for the Christian church because it works against the Great Commission itself. It’s not central (or at least shouldn’t be) to any christian belief system and mostly has the effect of driving thinking people away and providing ammunition to anti-religious groups. I hear folks ask, “Why aren’t moderate Christians speaking out against this?” Well, I can’t speak for the others, but I do every chance I get. Bad science is bad theology! Okay, I feel better now.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Nice to see even more parallels between modern physics and eastern thought. Buddhist cosmology has always noted the ‘bouncing universe’ model.
The universe is in an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction, life, death, and rebirth, just like our selves.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
How does this tye into string theory? And how do I explain it to a 6 year old?
July 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Thanks for the comment Wayne. I sort of feel the same way. I’m NOT a baptised Christian or part of any religion. It’s just sometimes I feel that some people believe that ‘creationists’ mean, anyone that believes a god or intelligence had a hand in the process. The way I see it, a ‘creationist’ is a certain group, mainly dogmatic Christians, that argue against solid scientific theory, despite the clear evidence presented.
From what I have read about ‘Intelligent Design’, it seems they are trying to prove God exists by using science. I’m not a scientist, but I can see clearly how rediculous that is. I support most arguments in favour of debunking ‘Intelligent Design’ as long as they are debunking the pseudo-science, and not the personal belief, which is supposed to be about faith anyway, and not really anything to do with science.
I’m all for keeping science and religion seperate, but I am not convinced you can use science to prove, or disprove something so far beyond testing. Debunking ghosts is one thing, debunking the chance a god exists is a whole other ballgame.
BTW .. I have read every post in the BA blog for the last few months, so now I’m hooked, hehe. I enjoy reading the articles you present too Phil, in ‘Australian Sky and Telescope’ magazine. The recent article on the full moon cleared up a few misconceptions I had about its apparent affect. Funny how you can just assume an old myth is true, if you just accept it at face value, given a few possible scientific reasons it could work.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
David, I have a 5 year old nephew. One day I tried to explain the big bang to him by using a ballon and he didnt quite get it. Then I found one of these in my sisters house, http://www.dalefield.com/nzfmm/magazine/expanding_ball.html , but its a plastic one, but it essentially does the same thing, expands and contracts. As it contracts it gets denser. I tried using that to explain the basic big bang, and he seems to get a better picture of it. He loves playing with it now. He makes little explosion sounds when its expanding, hehe.
I rekon you could use the same item to explain the expansion and contraction then the rebound, as it can’t get any smaller, then expanding again in a cycle. It’s a very rough idea, and far from the theoretical topographical model, but for a 5 - 6 year old, I rekon its a good one to start with, to get the basic concept.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
CY,
It’s not that matter created the so-called big bang, but rather the other way around. With spacetime were created the quantum-mechanical fields which fill space. The particles are then quantized excitations of the fields. The fields are more elementary than the particles themselves, which are more accurately seen as symptomatic of the fields varying their energy states.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
David,
It’s quite possible that it cannot very meaningfully be explained to a 6 year old.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
[…] this spirit, Bad Astronomy has an amiable little discussion on the things that matter in the workings of the univ…. Or the universes that already exist and once in a blue moon, collide - that would be talk of […]
July 1st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I think what’s difficult for most people to understand is that any kind of Big Bang that originated/created our Universe didn’t happen in any “empty space” - there was *no* kind of space, empty or otherwise at t-0. The Big Bang created our entire current Universe, matter, empty space, dark matter, etc…. ie- there was no ’space’, as we understand it, to happen in.
(Of course, we can’t “know”, yet, if there might be some sort of much higher-dimension ’steady state’ environment that lower-dimension Universes might re-generate over and over again. However, from our more simple 4-D comprehension, our current Universe is still contained within and ruled by the current Big Bang expanding dimensions and original quantum parameters.)
July 1st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I read that last posts blog, ‘Why religion is crap’. It’s basically a philosophical argument. That doesn’t make it wrong in my view, there are some good points. I just think, if you want to keep ‘religion out of science’ .. you also may need to keep ’science out of religion’, and stop trying to discredit the entire subject.
No matter how big the universe is discovered to be, nor how complex, I feel it’s a bit rich to totally discredit all forms of religion as the same thing, and to also completely deny the chance some sort of inteligence exists above what we see, and can measure, using science. Just because the universe is bigger than what some bloke says it is in his version of religious or Biblical interpretation, and that his or her god is too small, doesn’t mean he even had a clue to begin with.
Personally I don’t know if there is or isn’t some creator. I just believe, it is just as ignorant to deny it’s possibilty, as the ignorance the so called ‘creationists’ exercise. It’s a completely differnt subject, and one that science needs to back away from. Science is good at what it does, progressivly explaining our universe and its mechanics, and out place in it. But all within limits of what we can measure.
It’s easy to discredit a ‘creationist’ when he/she makes a stupid claim about the universe that can be clearly debunked using proven science. On the other hand, its assumed by alot of people that these ‘creationists’ even understand the source of their information, the Bible. The book is not a scientific text book, nor does it make vast scientific claims. The creation account is written in such an ambiguous way, clearly just giving an overall picture of things, that arguing against the pseudo-scientific claims they derive from it is really a waste of time. It’s like using science to argue against someone that says the Lord of the Rings was real … and we all came from elves. ;p. You just don’t bother.
Science is a great tool for helping us to understand our place in the universe, but I truly believe all these ’science vs religion’ arguments, are really just arguments against some persons or cultures interpretation of things.
In the end of it all, nobody can give any conclusive scientific proof, that God does, or doesn’t exist. Maybe if we left the subject alone and admitted they are different subjects, one scientific, one philosophical, we wouldn’t keep going round in circles.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
The author writes:
These theories may seem like mumbo-jumbo or magic, but they have that very basic property of science: they’re testable.
…maybe this isn’t the only Universe. There might have been a string of them, reaching back in time, in meta-time beyond time.
Hmm… I guess it’s really is turtles all the way down after all!
July 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Kudos on the post, I enjoyed it.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
ok im confused..so the answer to the big bang is to say there may have been universes existing before the big bang? how does this explain anything? we are still left wondering how were the previous universes created arent we? so what if you put a million bajillion years of time further back before the big bang. this theory doesnt explain a darn thing. could scientists explain the very beginning of matter at all without pushing time further back? the time of the big bang is far enough.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Perhaps someone can point me to a website, or an article, a crystal ball, whatever… but I was quite certain that there were no predictions from any of the unification theories, whether it be brane theory, string theory, m-theory, supergravity, LQG, etc. At least that is what I gathered from ‘Not Even Wrong!’
If anyone knows what experiments Phil mentions in passing, I would love to hear about it.
Love the Blog btw
July 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
But doesn’t such an assumption reduce time and the universe(s) to an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of type writers. If this process has been going on forever, there have been an infinite number of universes which have come before this one. Just like those monkeys are bound to eventually type even the most complex literary documents(thanks to the nature of infinity), anything which could happen already has happened in a previous universe(because there has been an infinite number of them). In other words, we are living out some recycled universe plot line that has already been played out trillions of years ago in some long forgotten universe. It kinda puts a damper on life, knowing that its basically equivalent to a re-run of “Cheers”. There may be something new under the sun, but there truly is nothing new under the metaphorical sun which overlooks out universe. (Of course, this assumes that this theory is correct. And frankly, I don’t see any other logical explication. I mean, the only other viable alternative “just on its merits isn’t right.”)
July 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
How depressing! I’m part of a Cheers re-run. I just hope it turns out differently.
There is so much that we don’t know, but over time, little pieces of the puzzle are talked about in different ways and sometimes unsolved puzzles are solved or partially so.
Science Magazine `Hydrogen in Some Hard-to-Trace Form` Satisfies Prediction
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070630110106nnnn.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html
“Drexler entered the race to identify dark matter in 2002, by utilizing Albert Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, Claude Shannon’s information theory, Johannes Kepler’s 400-year-old idea of re-analyzing the astronomical data of others, Occam’s razor logic of the 14th century and his career in applied physics research.”
July 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Wow… so its easier to believe in the Big Bang… and the recycling universe than to believe that the LORD made all things?
Ok.. duplication of the Big Bang is a scientific principle that can’t be duplicated…
Then why shouldn’t we all be afraid the next BIG BANG is going to
arbitrarily show up and wreck our universe?
NO… scientist’s won’t think that one thru.. but I guess its time!!
t.a.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I’d just like to say, this is not the EDGE of science. The idea of multiple universes was preached to me in 9th grade biology(albeit, accelerated), and is also mentioned in the playground, an interesting philosophical blog i just discovered (I put it in the website space as I do not have one of my own)
July 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
When you speak of creationists the way you do at the end, it is as if you are saying this answers the question of how it all started… but it seems that if true, all it does is push the question of “how did it start” backwards further… What you describe was A beginning… but it wasn’t THE beginning. No?
July 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
what a beautiful theory. to think of meta time in the universe makes everything I see seem like a movie or a re-run. I am enlightened.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
We are most likely living in a simulation. Philosophy has stated this over and over.
We may very likely be a simulation living inside of another simulation. The possibilities are limitless. But good ole Phil managed to put God in a box on the shelf once again. As long as Phil’s science proves to him the non existence of God, he’s happy.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I enjoyed the article very much myself, like the others posting here. I to agree with some above that attacking religious people by debunking their beliefs is stooping down to the level that you try so hard as a scientist to raise yourself above.
I believe in science as a way to explain how everything is, just like most of the people posting here. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion, because we are thinking people, not drones designed not to think.
Like d said above and to elaborate on the subject, you still can’t explain how the fact that this universe, or any universe in time/space/dimension etc… came to being in the first place. How does something come from nothing? How is this universe, or the one before it, and before it, in existence at all? All of the religious nuts who swear this earth is 4000 years old are ignoring facts that can be proven to them, but you are criticizing people who also believe that the universe had to be created, or it’s predecessor had to be created by something/someone. To top all of this you have no proof to debunk their belief in this. It appears to me what you are so quick to criticize, is backed by, of all things, no proof, or explanation, just another theory, that this may not be the first existence of this universe.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Just because “philosophy” has stated something repeatedly isn’t enough to make it so. How do you test that we are living in a simulation? To do that you need to establish what you mean by the difference between simulation and not-simulation. Then you need to actually look at the world in which you find yourself and see if it excludes one or the other. If you can’t exclude one empirically, then you cannot determine which one is more plausible.
Really all we have are data, and those data display some mode of orderliness. That’s all. Theories are just ways of saying what to expect to see on those occasions when you look. There is no pretense in science to knowing how things truly are behind the scenes. If we are a simulation, but that simulation is so perfect in detail as to be an *emulation*, then it’s meaningless to assert any such thing as that we are only a computation running on someone else’s big computer. That’s not something we’ll know, because there’s no important difference between what we observe either way.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Question: Within this theory of ‘Loop Quantum Gravity’, does it imply that ‘black holes’ also cannot have an ‘infinite singularity’ at their cores?
I understood the other main theory of the ‘big bang’ implied that it all came from a beginning point, which was an infinite singularity, due to a quantum fluctuation in the hypothetical ‘quantum foam’ ?
If this other theory works, and it removes the infinite point from the big bang, does this also mean that a black hole will also have to have it’s infinite point removed also ?
I always understood that the maths to describe the singularity in the early big bang was derived from the maths Einstein used to describe a singularity in black holes.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
For as long as I can remember I’ve believed that the big bang was likely the end of a previous universe.
I’m pretty sure the notion arose after reading the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy as a youngster…
I recall a passage wherein it was suggested that if the universe was ever truly understood it would be destoyed and a more complex universe would take its place … it was understood that this had already taken place …
made sense to me.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
[…] about a new discovery that might be able to describe the Universe that existed before the Big Bang!read more | digg […]
July 1st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I believe in science and I found this post very interesting. Nevertheless, it sometimes seems to me that there is some disingenuous reasoning amongst scientist who try to “debunk” the creationist viewpoint. Why is it OK under one system to accept something as unknowable e.g the volume of a previous universe and to consider another unknowable as virtual nonsense e.g the existance of a source or a creator?
Seems to me that regardless of what theory we apeal to be it Big Bang, LQG etc the question can be asked “why is this so…” and at some point the “honest” scientist will say “I don’t know…” The question of what happened at T
July 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
The question of what happened at T
July 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
[…] read more | digg story […]
July 1st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
So we’ve concluded that science alone cannot resolve the Big Bang. Once Again. Thank you. The point is proven that Big Bang and Evolution require just as much “faith” as creation.
I love the shots you take at so called creationists. Einstein and Newton both believed in a creator. Interestingly, so did Darwin. Newton thought God must be a mathematician. Darwin didn’t set out to discredit God. He just proved that life is way more complex than the simple teachings of Judaeo/Christian antiquity had professed for centuries. The existence of mutation alone proves that life cannot be a random and natural process. Pure science is the replication of an experiment and a conclusion with the same results. Well, evolution deviates from pure scientific replication of results.
1X10 to the 21st power VS 1 provides us the mathematical probability of a single strand of DNA spontaneously forming from elemental compounds. Why is it so difficult for modern “scientists” to acknowledge what Thomas Aquinas did centuries ago: “The Lord hath made foolish the wisdom of man.”
Your writing is very strong. Your theories, and those of the minds you follow, are excellent. None of it, however, proves or disproves the existence of a higher power or designer or whatever the progressives today wish to use as a term to denigrate those who believe in a Creator. I don’t see why science and religion need to be at war anyway. It is as if atheists need to justify their position with science so that they can label the rest of the 99% of the world as crazy. The vast majority of science-minded people are believers. They are just simply the silent majority behind the vociferous atheistic minority.
This trend of the vocal few dictating the arena, laying field, and rules for science and debate in modern politics is frightening. 93% of America espouses traditional religious Judaeo/Christian beliefs. Why are there so many from extreme minority who try to wag the dog?
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
[…] What Happened Before The Big Bang? […]
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 am
A very good post, but try to leave the “god” argument out of it. The main reason is because “god” in every religion is defined as a bit different, and if you look at Judaism, Buddhism, and a few others, there are many religions that probably agree with your plights. Most enlightened religious individuals are not saying that your points are not correct, but just that there is still an unexplained force that triggers all of this… thus the theory of code name “god”. Yes you can go on and on about universes and strings, and infinity, but all scientists believe in a threshold, thats why we keep moving forward, to answer more and more about life. But, the theory of god has never been switched to mean something different. Put simply “supreme force that has created everything”… that is all that means.
So after my ranting, point = don’t talk about god in a scientific argument or blog related activity, its a waste of time. Other than that, good.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 am
Two more points:
Entropy and the so called Big Bang are at philosophical odds. Entropy suggests that nature will find its own level or natural state. A cultivated field, for example, will one day become a young forest, if left fallow because seeds of trees will blow in the wind and will find soil.The land will return to the existing natural state it was before man took dominion of it. For example, grass and weeds will invade cracks in concrete if city workers don’t employ Roundup or elbow grease… nature’s natural state is replenishment of the species. All plant and animal life exists to propagate the species.
Well, if everything here was the result of a giant explosion that was not intended or guided, then the energy from the explosion would dissipate as with every other explosion. How then could every living species, plant and animal, have in its DNA the unstoppable drive to continue the species? Entropy and Big Bang are incompatible.
Point 2… since we are exploring theoretical physics and astrophysics, why is it that water is the only known substance to become less dense as a solid? We’ve found ice on Mars… evidence that life may have existed there some time in the past? It might lead to support for the theory that one universe led to another and another and so on.
Here on this rock, water becomes less dense as it becomes a solid, thus enabling ice to float. The evolutionists advocate that mammalian life evolved from aquatic. Well, is this an accident or a design? The only substance to defy the laws of physics on Earth gave us the origin of life. Maybe if ice was more dense, it would sink and the ponds where the first mud creature of evolution first crawled out of the primordial ooze to gasp its first amphibious breath of oxygen might have died in a frozen mass at the bottom of he pond, which turned to solid ice with the sinking and subsequent freezing of layer upon layer of ice. The floating ice allowed the abundance of life under the surface of the water to prevail, and thus one day crawl upon the bank and then walk upright and do Calculus.
Were these accidents? To believe so requires a remarkable leap of faith, only it is no a leap of Christian faith.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
Two more points:
Entropy and the so called Big Bang are at philosophical odds. Entropy suggests that nature will find its own level or natural state. A cultivated field, for example, will one day become a young forest, if left fallow because seeds of trees will blow in the wind and will find soil.The land will return to the existing natural state it was before man took dominion of it. For example, grass and weeds will invade cracks in concrete if city workers don’t employ Roundup or elbow grease… nature’s natural state is replenishment of the species. All plant and animal life exists to propagate the species.
Well, if everything here was the result of a giant explosion that was not intended or guided, then the energy from the explosion would dissipate as with every other explosion. How then could every living species, plant and animal, have in its DNA the unstoppable drive to continue the species? Entropy and Big Bang are incompatible.
Point 2… since we are exploring theoretical physics and astrophysics, why is it that water is the only known substance to become less dense as a solid? We’ve found ice on Mars… evidence that life may have existed there some time in the past? It might lead to support for the theory that one universe led to another and another and so on.
Here on this rock, water becomes less dense as it becomes a solid, thus enabling ice to float. The evolutionists advocate that mammalian life evolved from aquatic. Well, is this an accident or a design? The only substance to defy the laws of physics on Earth gave us the origin of life. Maybe if ice was more dense, it would sink and the ponds where the first mud creature of evolution first crawled out of the primordial ooze to gasp its first amphibious breath of oxygen might have died in a frozen mass at the bottom of the pond, which turned to solid ice with the sinking and subsequent freezing of layer upon layer of ice. The floating ice allowed the abundance of life under the surface of the water to prevail, and thus one day crawl upon the bank and then walk upright and do Calculus.
Were these accidents? To believe so requires a remarkable leap of faith, only it is no a leap of Christian faith.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 am
Basilbeard wrote: “…But doesn’t such an assumption reduce time and the universe(s) to an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of type writers. If this process has been going on forever, there have been an infinite number of universes which have come before this one… In other words, we are living out some recycled universe plot line that has already been played out trillions of years ago in some long forgotten universe…”
Suppose that from t equals minus infinity till now all those infinite monkeys have been using Roman-alphabet typewriters. So we haven’t yet seen “War and Peace” in the original correctly spelled Russian (even over that infinite time span). Now let’s give the monkeys Unicode typewriters. We’ll eventually get “War and Peace,” but we’ll still be missing something. We’d probably need a lot more monkeys (and maybe bigger typewriters, too) to write the descriptions of all possible universes. More than aleph-null monkeys, I’ll bet. Maybe alpeh-one? (I have trouble even conceiving of that many monkeys!)
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
[…] Kas nutiko po Didžiojo Sprogimo, kodÄ—l tai nutiko ir kas buvo prieÅ¡ jį? […]
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 am
burnsie13 : I think if you consider the big bang as an ‘inflation’, like a balloon, rather than an explosion, the big bang makes more sense. The big bang is not supposed to work like a typical explosion, like the way we see with say: a stick of dynamite.
I like to think of it more like a ball of compressed water (total energy), in a balloon (compressed space-time) and suddenly the balloon is allowed to expand (inflation of space time) . As the ballon expands the water rushing out with it forms whirlpools and mini currents ( galaxies ), etc.
It’s a very rough analogy but because the realease of energy is contained within the balloon, its not effective to compare it to an explosion with no barriers, where by all the energy is scattered out away from the source, with no force to contain it. The explosions we are familiar with, are not meant to be applied to the big bang descriptively, as far as I understand.
One point I’d like to make is that the explosion of a star and the new stars that form from the nebulae are an example of something being created from the entropic forces in its enviorment. Gravity and such wanting to put it back to its natural state, which just happens to make a star and planets in process.
I don’t think entropy and the big bang are at odds at all.
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Einstein, one of the greatest scientific minds of our generation, acknowledged the existance of God.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:38 am
Daffy wrote: “I recall that James Blish used this exact scenario (Big Bounce…although he didn’t use that term) at the end of his Cities in Flight series;”
Those are great books, at least when read with an understanding of the scientific knowledge at the time of writing. Very entertaining, great stories, no matter how idiotic the idea of flying cities is
burnsie13, the argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics is getting really, really, really old. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
C Scott: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” — Albert Einstein
Einstein did allow for a creator that did his work when creating the universe and then “stepped back”. Of course if he doesn’t influence the universe anymore, what’s the use of prayer? Always be careful when trying to use the words of greater minds than yours.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 am
I see a quote from Romans 1:21-22, I would also add Psalm 19:1
Anyhue back to this idea of a previous universe and a big bounce.
I have heard this idea before
My problem is that for the bounce to have occured, their needed to be a big crunch which only takes place in a closed system. With the present universe we are in, the observations point to an open system with the end predicted to be the Big Chill. Why would another prior universe be different?
Also with regard to the fine tuning argument Phil mentions, it seems he may have forgotten the conclusions of the Anthropic Cosmological Principal which had fine tuning a plenty, but was devised by atheists Christians may have used it, but it was not devised by them. I tend to think it has more weight than that theological dead end known as Intelligent Design.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 am
Such foolishness…everyone knows that the universe was created when God Sneezed.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 am
And we all fear the coming of the great white hankerchief…
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:53 am
C Scott:
“Einstein, one of the greatest scientific minds of our generation, acknowledged the existance of God.”
Not in the sense you’re implying, he didn’t. Einstein most definitely did not believe in a personal, interfering god. Einstein’s god was more a shorthand for “the totality of the universe”. It probably wasn’t even as well-defined as the god of the deists.
And that doesn’t even address the argument from misplaced authority in that post…
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 am
For all the people posting to criticise Phil for attacking god and religion: read the last paragraphs again. Nowhere does he claim that this discovery/theory disproves god. Rather, the idea of an indefinite sequence of universes each differing from the other fundamentally undermines one particular argument for god. That’s all.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:52 am
burnsie13 said: So we’ve concluded that science alone cannot resolve the Big Bang. Once Again. Thank you. The point is proven that Big Bang and Evolution require just as much “faith†as creation.
Oh, look, the religious are coming to try out their newfound arguments.
I’m not sure what blog you’re reading, but the one I’m reading says we may have just made a major step forward in our understanding of the expansion of the universe, and it was done with science. Moreover, no faith is involved, since the math and physics are there for anyone to test out. And, quite apparently, they have. That’s not faith, in any definition of the word - it’s exactly the opposite. Sorry, strike one, you can’t make your point by playing semantic games.
I love the shots you take at so called creationists. Einstein and Newton both believed in a creator. Interestingly, so did Darwin. Newton thought God must be a mathematician. Darwin didn’t set out to discredit God. He just proved that life is way more complex than the simple teachings of Judaeo/Christian antiquity had professed for centuries.
This in no way changes the science that all of them accomplished, any more than their race or their breakfast cereal does. What’s your point?
The existence of mutation alone proves that life cannot be a random and natural process. Pure science is the replication of an experiment and a conclusion with the same results. Well, evolution deviates from pure scientific replication of results.
Um, no. Science is about discovering the nature of our universe - the quest for knowledge. Replication is the path to ensure that the processes used were not done incorrectly, and that the conclusions are valid (insofar as limitations of measurement go - Newton, for instance, had the right ideas, but not the tools to measure as accurately as we do now).
Mutation is not a scientific experiment - it is a natural process. It is not governed by the constraints we humans have created to monitor scientific accuracy. Get it? One is simply nature, the other is a process man created. There’s no reason to expect them to be similar in any way.
But you raise a good point - what purpose would mutation serve in a created/designed organism?
And again, you also blow the science - the mutations do indeed replicate, and that’s a major factor in evolution.
1X10 to the 21st power VS 1 provides us the mathematical probability of a single strand of DNA spontaneously forming from elemental compounds. Why is it so difficult for modern “scientists†to acknowledge what Thomas Aquinas did centuries ago: “The Lord hath made foolish the wisdom of man.â€
It wouldn’t be a creationist argument without some meaningless statistic thrown in. Where, pray tell, did you derive this number from? And since we do not (yet) know how life began on this planet, what makes you think you could calculate the process with the slightest degree of accuracy?
And finally, probabilities such as this fail (in a huge way) in that they are attempting to express the single chance of a completed protein strand simply popping into existence, whereas science tells us that such a thing would be a process that built up over time. And bear in mind, calculating a probability also needs to take into account the conditions where it can occur. While there may be a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of something happening, if it involves something like water molecules in the ocean, there’s a very good chance it is actually happening millions of times among the billions of water molecules.
Your writing is very strong. Your theories, and those of the minds you follow, are excellent. None of it, however, proves or disproves the existence of a higher power or designer or whatever the progressives today wish to use as a term to denigrate those who believe in a Creator.
Nobody said it did - you need to work on your reading comprehension. What was said is that it contradicts the stories the creationists insist are “factual,” and for which no evidence exists. Whether there is a creator or not remains to be seen, but no one has yet offered even the slightest proof of such an existence. Science has, however, repeatedly demonstrated that its alternate explanations consistently stand up to examination, and moreover, corroborate each other.
I don’t see why science and religion need to be at war anyway.
Talk to your preacher/pastor/rabbi/whoever.
It is as if atheists need to justify their position with science so that they can label the rest of the 99% of the world as crazy. The vast majority of science-minded people are believers. They are just simply the silent majority behind the vociferous atheistic minority.
And your source for these numbers?
This trend of the vocal few dictating the arena, laying field, and rules for science and debate in modern politics is frightening.
Hmmm, let’s see. We can guide ourselves, our laws, and our research, in terms of facts, or in terms of cute little stories.
The facts continue to lead to good knowledge and advances in our understanding of the world, advances in medicine, more lives saved, better living and working conditions, more efficient practices, and on and on and on. And remember what you’re reading this on.
The cute stories have provided… hang on, I’ll find something beneficial in a minute… ummmm…
Nope, sorry, all I can find is suppression of science, rampant exploitation, power-hungry religious leaders, a few crusades, a few thousand witch hunts, some pogroms… in short, a whole lot of utter sh*t in the name of some beneficial leader.
Golly, this looks like a hard decision to make!
93% of America espouses traditional religious Judaeo/Christian beliefs. Why are there so many from extreme minority who try to wag the dog?
Because that’s a really remarkable and embarrassing level of stupidity. You should probably try to understand, high numbers do not indicate correctness. Or you can simply spread your statistical base outside the states and watch the numbers fall.
Or you could also try to reconcile that those very numbers you quote, of “Judaeo[sic]/Christian beliefs,” don’t agree amongst themselves on the “traditions” you think are so important. And they’re all using the same source of information. Go figure. Or let us know when you guys have figured out what the “correct” cute little story is. Think you can do it within another three thousand years?
Two more points:
Are they going to be worthwhile ones?
Entropy and the so called Big Bang are at philosophical odds. Entropy suggests that nature will find its own level or natural state. A cultivated field, for example, will one day become a young forest, if left fallow because seeds of trees will blow in the wind and will find soil.The land will return to the existing natural state it was before man took dominion of it. For example, grass and weeds will invade cracks in concrete if city workers don’t employ Roundup or elbow grease… nature’s natural state is replenishment of the species. All plant and animal life exists to propagate the species.
Well, if everything here was the result of a giant explosion that was not intended or guided, then the energy from the explosion would dissipate as with every other explosion. How then could every living species, plant and animal, have in its DNA the unstoppable drive to continue the species? Entropy and Big Bang are incompatible.
[Sigh] Guess not. Okay, here’s a tip: If you’re going to try and argue the logic behind some aspect of science, it would be really, really non-absolutely-idiotic of you to actually read up on the aspect of science first. That way, you won’t get your ass handed to you like this:
“Big Bang” is just a colloquial term, and does not refer to an actual explosion. Nevertheless, what you fail to realize that, if you really want to use it like an explosion, we are inside the fireball. All energy, every last bit of it that we see throughout the universe, is the energy that you claim is “dissipating.”
Meanwhile, entropy means a state of equilibrium, no avenue for energy exchange because all points within the system have equal levels of energy. This does not have to happen immediately, nor in a straight line manner, and in a place the size of the universe with the energy levels it has, it’s gonna take a long time. Those plants and weeds you refer to are, little by little, doing their part to balance out the energy from our sun, which will eventually flare off and die out, and those plants with it. That’s entropy.
Point 2… since we are exploring theoretical physics and astrophysics, why is it that water is the only known substance to become less dense as a solid? We’ve found ice on Mars… evidence that life may have existed there some time in the past? It might lead to support for the theory that one universe led to another and another and so on.
Here on this rock, water becomes less dense as it becomes a solid, thus enabling ice to float. The evolutionists advocate that mammalian life evolved from aquatic. Well, is this an accident or a design? The only substance to defy the laws of physics on Earth gave us the origin of life. Maybe if ice was more dense, it would sink and the ponds where the first mud creature of evolution first crawled out of the primordial ooze to gasp its first amphibious breath of oxygen might have died in a frozen mass at the bottom of the pond, which turned to solid ice with the sinking and subsequent freezing of layer upon layer of ice. The floating ice allowed the abundance of life under the surface of the water to prevail, and thus one day crawl upon the bank and then walk upright and do Calculus.
Owww, my brain! Stop it! You’re making me want to kill your high school teachers!
All right, deep breath here, we can get through this. First off, water is not the only substance that expands when it solidifies, oh heck, let’s use the proper term, “crystallizes.” Bismuth, gallium, germanium, and antimony also do it, so no, it is not the only substance to “defy the laws of physics,” and in fact, defies no such laws in the slightest. Second, water does this because of its simple chemical nature - the hydrogen atoms in separate molecules bond to each other, which causes them to stand off a bit, like allowing triangles to touch only on their points - they take up more space than if you slotted them together side-by-side. And, of course, this is also what’s responsible for the hexagonal snow crystals we know.
Inferring design from this completely and utterly ignores the fact that countless other substances in the universe have no such properties, and are in fact hostile to life. Why so much designed that is utterly worthless to some magic sky pony’s plan? See what you get when you ask questions other than those dictated by your mindset?
Of course life will evolve only where it has the conditions to do so. That’s really a “DUH!” thing. What else would you expect? But you know something? For something supposedly designed for us, we can use only a very tiny fraction of it. We can’t live in that wonderful water ourselves, we can’t go too high up the mountains, we can’t cope with the cold of the poles, we can’t go underground, we can’t even fly through the atmosphere.
What a gyp! If it wasn’t for science, we’d go absolutely nowhere
Were these accidents? To believe so requires a remarkable leap of faith, only it is no a leap of Christian faith.
And yet, every last thing that we have discovered about ourselves, and our planet, and our universe, all indicate that this is indeed so. No faith required - you can even do the experiments yourself! And you might realize this if you took the time to actually read up on some of the stuff you’re trying to argue.
Now, let me propose an experiment for you: Find out if I’m actually right or not. Call my bluff, if you will, and go seek out the science (and the definitions) yourself. Discover for yourself, if you have the guts, who, exactly, has been lying to you, and who you shouldn’t be placing your faith within.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 am
Just Al, bravo bravo!!
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 am
To burnsie13
Newton, yes; Einstein, no. Darwin was originally a religious believer but later came to renounce The Bible, God, and the Christian faith.
Not so. I could give you some references, but you made the claim so go & do your own research
To Qd
I would say that the ridicule is directed against Young Earth Creationists rather than religion in general (although my own belief is that religion is superstitious nonsense.) The YECs seem to have a specific anti-science agenda that involves the setting up of a theocracy that would mean everyone ‘believes’ or else! I have no problem with individuals having their personal spiritual beliefs, but when someone else says, in effect, “This is what you should believe”, I think it’s time to run away from them as fast as possible
Getting back on topic, I always had faith (humour intended) that someone would find a way to describe conditions at T=0 and beyond. However, I still think that the next Einstein is still to appear - hopefully in my lifetime but maybe not in this century.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 am
[…] to this article, it involves something called Loop Quantum Gravity. Martin Bojowald, an assistant professor of […]
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 am
Just Al, after entering my meagre response I discovered that your much more substantial one had been posted. I second Crux Australis’ bravo, bravo with a hear, hear!
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:18 am
Fascinating article, Phil.
I heard of this Brane Theory in Martin Rees’s book, “Before the Beginning”. I believe he dubbed the situation the “multiverse”.
Such a theory certainly may solve some problems with our understanding of our universe’s origins. Of course, new problems may arise, but that’s the beauty of science: figuring out new problems!
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 am
Sam Nesvoy wrote: “Basilbeard wrote: “…But doesn’t such an assumption reduce time and the universe(s) to an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of type writers. If this process has been going on forever, there have been an infinite number of universes which have come before this one… In other words, we are living out some recycled universe plot line that has already been played out trillions of years ago in some long forgotten universe…â€
Suppose that from t equals minus infinity till now all those infinite monkeys have been using Roman-alphabet typewriters. So we haven’t yet seen “War and Peace†in the original correctly spelled Russian (even over that infinite time span). Now let’s give the monkeys Unicode typewriters. We’ll eventually get “War and Peace,†but we’ll still be missing something. We’d probably need a lot more monkeys (and maybe bigger typewriters, too) to write the descriptions of all possible universes. More than aleph-null monkeys, I’ll bet. Maybe alpeh-one? (I have trouble even conceiving of that many monkeys!)”
More monkeys, yes, an degree of infinite number of more monkeys, no. The universe is made up of a countably finite number of particles, each of which can be expressed in a countably finite way, right? And as the length in time of each universe is finite, the complete history of a universe can be expressed in finite length(because finite * finite = finite). It will be a much more massive length than “War and Peace”, but infinite > really big and so the monkeys will eventually pound it out.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 am
C Scott Says: “Einstein, one of the greatest scientific minds of our generation […]”
I congratulate you on staying up to speed with modern technology, and using the computer, internet and blogs. The few people of your generation that I know mostly just stare out of the window.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:07 am
COSMOLOGY DEFINITION:
Cosmology is a borderland between science and Philosophy
Cosmology deals with Multi-Universe concepts and the Universe as part of Cosmos.
Cosmology details Creation, stability and dissolution of the Universe or parts thereof.
Cosmology covers broad Prime drive functions and links :
COSMOLOGY FROM PHILOSOPHY TO VEDAS
1. Cosmology in Vedas 2.Cosmology in Philosophy 3.Science of Philosophy
4. Basic Philosophy
FROM SCIENCE TO COSMOLOGY
1. Basic Science 2. Philosophy of Science 3.Cosmogony-Astrophysics
4. Cosmology -Present Day under Revision
NATURE TO COSMIC DIVINE
1.Nature 2.Divine Function in Nature 3. Divine Universe 4.Cosmos Divine
(Reproduced from :Heart Of Universe, at ~10^5 LY beyond Galactic Plane, Book by Vidyardhi Nanduri, Dec 2006, Application Copy rights, Usa)
Key Words: Cosmology Definition, Cosmology Primer, Cosmology Drive,
Cosmology Science,cosmology Vedas,Cosmology Philosophy,Cosmology Nature
,Cosmic Divine Function,Cosmology interlinks,Cosmology Space Science,
Cosmology Knowledge Base, Knowledge Expansion,creation in the Universe
, stability of the Universe , Dissolution of the part of the Universe
http://cosmology-interlinks.blogspot.com/
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:40 am
Good article.
I have some thoughts about this.
You discuss the physical constants being changed in each universe between every “bounce”. The “bounces” would, however, require at least some constants being common for every universe.
What if, in one of the universes, the gravity was negative? Every particle would drift away from every other particle, never being able to form a singularity again.
Another thing the universes would need to have in common is that space need to be formed, else there would be no “bounces”.
Third, the gravity must be large enough to stop and retract all mass and energy pushed out from the initial singularity.
Another thought about this: if assuming several parallel universes and “bounces”, I would also assume that mass and energy could be transferred between universes.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 am
You really should take a look at Alexander Mayer’s fellowship research that has turned the astronomy and physics world upside-down. There was no big bang, there is no “inflation,” dark matter or energy and this has been known for years… but Mr Mayer’s discussions reveal the pure physics understanding of why science has been wrong for so long. Spacetime must be solved with geometry, not algebra!
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 am
Excellent post! Space really is amazing to think about!
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 am
“But if you get enough Universes, and the constants change in each one, then eventually one will get the mix right. Stars will last for billions of years, planets can form, life can evolve, and on one blue green ball of dust, chemicals can get complicated enough that they could look inside themselves, understand what they see, and marvel at the very fact of their own existence.
And maybe, just maybe, they can also figure out how it all came to be. This isn’t fantasy, folks, it’s science. It’s how things work.”
Best part of a fascinating article. Even if such things do make my brain hurt….
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 am
I once read somewhere that Before the Beginning, there were “Quantum Geometry Networks.” Perhaps someone can explain this in layman’s terms.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 am
Big Bang Fuel Discovered & Demonstrated
Charles Sven
cjsven@allnewuniverse.com
The question of what fueled the Big Bang can now be
answered with the latest scientific findings, delineating the
life of the atom’s ageless proton heart in a synthesis
employing photons, the speed of light, energy, and
Einstein’s Ether that fills the Arena of Space prior to the
Big Bang.
Introduction
Theories abound; technology lags; time drags. Then the reverse
takes place. Today, our ingenuity propels technology at such a
hectic pace that many great discoveries are uncovered faster than
anyone can evaluate with the result that the relationship between
one finding and another can be easily obscured including old
theories that could be now answered.
In this paper we will examine some new findings as well as
some old concepts and marry them here.
New technological findings
Super-Kamiokande is a joint Japan-US collaboration that
constructed the world’s largest underground neutrino observatory
for the grand purpose to study our proton’s life with a finding
that the proton’s age is basically beyond measure – ageless.
Second: As nuclear bombs and many physics experiments
show, turning matter into light, heat, and other forms of energy is
nothing new. Now a team of physicists has demonstrated the
inverse process–turning light into matter. In the September 1,
1997 Physical Review Letters, the team describes how they
collided large crowds of photons together so violently that the
interactions spawned particles of matter.
Physicists have long known that this kind of conjuring act is
possible, but they have never observed it directly till now.
Old theories
ETHER and the Theory of Relativity
An address delivered by Einstein 5/5/1920 at University of
Leyden.
“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity SPACE is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the
general theory of relativity SPACE without ether is unthinkable;
for in such space there … would be no propagation of light, …â€
Demonstration
Strike a match – ageless atoms push
light/photons going off in all directions.
Where is the atom’s power coming from?
No fourteen billion year old batteries found.
Source of power must be external to atom – like a wild current
flowing in a giant, super-cooled super-high frequency, circuit in
the vastness of Space. [The huge Arena of Space prior to the Big
Bang with a frequency beyond current technology’s detection.]
This same great energy source then can easily supply the power
needed for the Big Bang.
Synthesis
Ageless atom’s electron requirements, used to drive
light/photons without batteries, must be supplied from a huge,
external, super-cooled source that could exist 14 billion years
without degradation. Extrapolating one atom’s requirement to all
the atoms in our Universe - if our Universe was the size of a drop
of water, we would require an ocean of energy-filled space to
fuel all our atoms.
Conclusion
This huge ocean of energy that drives our atoms has more than enough
power to fuel the Big Bang Explosion IN energy-filled SPACE.
Application
This study greatly supports my paper the Corrected Big Bang
Model presented here at the 12th Annual NPA Conference in
May, 2005; that describes a Big Bang Explosion IN energy-filled
SPACE.
Respectfully,
Charles Sven
cjsven@allnewuniverse.com
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:49 am
Big Bang Fuel Discovered & Demonstrated
Charles Sven
cjsven@allnewuniverse.com
The question of what fueled the Big Bang can now be
answered with the latest scientific findings, delineating the
life of the atom’s ageless proton heart in a synthesis
employing photons, the speed of light, energy, and
Einstein’s Ether that fills the Arena of Space prior to the
Big Bang.
Introduction
Theories abound; technology lags; time drags. Then the reverse
takes place. Today, our ingenuity propels technology at such a
hectic pace that many great discoveries are uncovered faster than
anyone can evaluate with the result that the relationship between
one finding and another can be easily obscured including old
theories that could be now answered.
In this paper we will examine some new findings as well as
some old concepts and marry them here.
New technological findings
Super-Kamiokande is a joint Japan-US collaboration that
constructed the world’s largest underground neutrino observatory
for the grand purpose to study our proton’s life with a finding
that the proton’s age is basically beyond measure – ageless.
Second: As nuclear bombs and many physics experiments
show, turning matter into light, heat, and other forms of energy is
nothing new. Now a team of physicists has demonstrated the
inverse process–turning light into matter. In the September 1,
1997 Physical Review Letters, the team describes how they
collided large crowds of photons together so violently that the
interactions spawned particles of matter.
Physicists have long known that this kind of conjuring act is
possible, but they have never observed it directly till now.
Old theories
ETHER and the Theory of Relativity
An address delivered by Einstein 5/5/1920 at University of
Leyden.
“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity SPACE is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the
general theory of relativity SPACE without ether is unthinkable;
for in such space there … would be no propagation of light, …â€
Demonstration
Strike a match – ageless atoms push
light/photons going off in all directions.
Where is the atom’s power coming from?
No fourteen billion year old batteries found.
Source of power must be external to atom – like a wild current
flowing in a giant, super-cooled super-high frequency, circuit in
the vastness of Space. [The huge Arena of Space prior to the Big
Bang with a frequency beyond current technology’s detection.]
This same great energy source then can easily supply the power
needed for the Big Bang.
Synthesis
Ageless atom’s electron requirements, used to drive
light/photons without batteries, must be supplied from a huge,
external, super-cooled source that could exist 14 billion years
without degradation. Extrapolating one atom’s requirement to all
the atoms in our Universe - if our Universe was the size of a drop
of water, we would require an ocean of energy-filled space to
fuel all our atoms.
Conclusion
This huge ocean of energy that drives our atoms has more than enough
power to fuel the Big Bang Explosion IN energy-filled SPACE.
Application
This study greatly supports my paper the Corrected Big Bang
Model presented here at the 12th Annual NPA Conference in
May, 2005; that describes a Big Bang Explosion IN energy-filled
SPACE.
Respectfully,
Charles Sven
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
First, there may not be black holes. Now, we might be able to determine what happened before the big bang.
I can’t quite grasp what’s being said here, but it’s fascinating nonetheless.
Astrophysics hurts, but it hurts so good…
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
[…] Bad Astronomy Blog » What happened before the Big Bang?: “Martin Bojowald, an assistant professor of physics at Penn State University, may have broken through this barrier for the first time. He is working on a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, and it combines relativity and quantum mechanics.” […]
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Simplify, simplify, simplify! God was bored, put Him/Her self into a singularity, popped the big bang. We’re all part of it and will live forever within this wonderous realm we call The Universe!
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Absolutely fascinating. And the majority of the comments were enlightening as well.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
It’s too bad your main motivation of these articles are to attempt to disprove religion. It really lowers your credibility.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 am
John,
What evidence do you have that the BA’s main motivation is to disprove religion? I read the articles here and I don’t reach that conclusion.
Perhaps the problem is not with the BA at all if you are this defensive about religion.
BA,
Great article and a fascinating topic.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 am
He’s not ‘disproving religion’. Phil is disproving the ‘pseudo-science’ of creationists, which has been proven again, and again to be wrong.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
Too bad there are so many comments about religion. Of course where science is still hazy religion and its rose colored glasses still function.
Really this is an amazing triumph of the human mind. Nothing was said about string theory but ‘loop’ as well as the fact string theory is the only(?) success so far in combining quantum mechanics and general relativity is there a bit of string theory in there?
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
The Cosmic egg that, for some unexplainable reason, began expanding already contained all the “stuff” required to make our universe.
Where did the egg come from?
What is the first uncaused cause?
Is the “stuff” that makes the universe eternal?
Does science really teaches that out of nothing something comes?
Nothing new here, move along.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
The idea of the rebounding universe is not what is new here. That has been proposed and discussed for a long time. What is new is the mathematics in place to support the notion.
Phil, is it time for that disclaimer about what you mean by “Creationist” yet?
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Topologists like to point out that an infinitely tall mountain and an infinitely deep hole are topologically the same. What you call it merely depends on your “point of view”.
I wonder if the space/time inflation we are witnessing is “merely” the eventual collapse of this space/time? So we’re actually living in a collapsing space/time while the evidence for expansion is prehistoric.
A truism in physics states that “anything not forbidden(by natural law) is mandatory”,,,and if you wait long enough, nothing is forbidden”. Thus the existence of a god is merely a question of definition. Of course, once it has been defined, it can be tested,,,
God,,,is a moth,,,fluttering about my ear,,,waiting for me to hear,,,
Gary 7
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
[…] in on one big problem with all such approaches (which I’ve already alluded to in a comment at Bad Astronomy, although I kind of garbled it). If you try to invent a cosmology in which you straightforwardly […]
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
[…] July 1st, 2007 in Science The Bad Astronomer has a really cool post, What happened before the Big Bang?, Â on the big bang. Loop Quantum Gravity just sounds cool doesn’t it. […]
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 am
Qd:
If you haven’t ready Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, please do. He makes some arguments for why even more mainstream religion is not something that should be respected, supported, put up with, etc.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
Hum… and where/how does all universes come into existence?
What does support the universe?
Or, what does support the “space” where our brane-world exists?
How does stuff exists? The science will never be able to answer that
Cells in a complex game of life don’t know, and can’t know that universe exists in a computer…..
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Is it just me or does the idea of a long series of universes where everything changes for each one sound a lot like a computer performing artificial evolution?
I mean, for an infinite series of universes an “ever-expanding” universe would have to be impossible. OR, something would have to notice that everything had gone dead and restart with a new universe.
Of course, this could upset both the scientists and the creationists because it implies “god” exists, but also can’t visit us (or doesn’t even know about us).
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am
It’s been my personal opinion that our universe follows a cyclical existence for years. I’m glad that this is being proved. The one thing that we see repeated over and over is a cycle, birth to death, day to night, etc. etc. This principle should hold true from the smallest example (atom with electrons in orbit) all the way up to the largest known (the Big Bounce). we’re in repetition perpetually, always chasing our tails. You could even surmise that we may just be a memory in and of ourselves, playing over and over. We would, of course, only conceive of the current time line we live in, so we could never know that this is the case, but it follows the cyclic principle. It also seems like our cycle is a resonance of some sort, with highs and lows expressed in growth and deterioration and then starting over again. We could be an expression of the quantum state of a single electron around a much larger atom (if you will) just rotating, expressing this rotation in the time dimension. One thing is for sure, though. It will all start over and occur again at some point.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Maybe just maybe you’ll have a change of heart like Darwin did.
There is science in anything you wish to believe, but how can you fathom a universe that created itself. After all, we were created in God’s image and we as his children are creationists.
With cloning we can even create life as he did
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
Ok, Does GOD Exist,
Creation is something that happens at a point in time, and on a larger scale, you have to remove time from your thoughts. Time is no more than a human way to understand where we currently are, and were in this cycle. It will start over, and conceivably you will ask the same question at the same point next time around, but who knows? The point is, there is no beginning and no end