Maybe another big bang happened before ours' (the one we are familiar with). Also we could all be martians and "aliens" humans? Also pls horsey this, i like horsey.
@NotSuperIntelligence what u are talking about is also known as Big Bounce theory.
Maybe it's a loop?
@CreativeThinking may be
@CreativeThinking said in #34:
> Maybe it's a loop?
That's pretty much what cosmic conformal cosmology says. The universe's matter becomes so dispersed that the universe as a whole ends up not knowing how big or small it is.
This is because there's no physical transfer of anything anymore, where not even light (a photon) could ever reach any other particle.
So there's no gravitational, electromagnetic or any other kind of interaction that could tell any part of the universe anything about the rest.
For all physical purposes the size of the universe is now better described as 0, than it is to use any other number. You could also leave it as <undefined>, which, again, is nothing you could still apply physics to. So what kind of a weird state is that?
Ccc argues, perhaps, that it's a postordial state, which becomes primordial to the next iteration of the whole proverbial enchilada. Sounds pretty neat.
> Maybe it's a loop?
That's pretty much what cosmic conformal cosmology says. The universe's matter becomes so dispersed that the universe as a whole ends up not knowing how big or small it is.
This is because there's no physical transfer of anything anymore, where not even light (a photon) could ever reach any other particle.
So there's no gravitational, electromagnetic or any other kind of interaction that could tell any part of the universe anything about the rest.
For all physical purposes the size of the universe is now better described as 0, than it is to use any other number. You could also leave it as <undefined>, which, again, is nothing you could still apply physics to. So what kind of a weird state is that?
Ccc argues, perhaps, that it's a postordial state, which becomes primordial to the next iteration of the whole proverbial enchilada. Sounds pretty neat.
@tijilsingh Isn't that like asking what was before before?
Based on current predictions of the big bang, most likely a spacetime singularity. Think infinitely dense goop of mass that eventually exploded.
@Sacmaniac said in #22:
> In the beginning, there was nothing.
>
> That nothing exploded into everything.
>
> So water comes from fire>?
>
> It is a theory as redonkulas as saying, the universe is turtles all the way down.
>
> However as humans we need answers to unanswerable questions and cult leaders provide those easily digestible answers.
>
> All you can ever really know for certain is the contents of your own thoughts. The universe is between your ears.
You are clearly referring to the big bang theory. Or rather a very common misconception about the big bang theory. The theory does not deal with THE Beginning. It's a theory describing the evolution and expansion of our universe AFTER it had begun (if it did so?). The theory was arrived at by interpolating the current observed expansion of the universe backwards in time. The logic is quite simple:
1) The universe as we see it today is expanding (all galaxies are moving away from us or more precisely from each other).
2) Because of the limited speed of light looking out into space also means looking backwards in time, the further you look the more time it took for the light to reach us
3) Observing how fast galaxies from different time periods are moving away from us shows that the expansion of the universe is not a new thing
4) Interpolating into the past one can conclude that the universe can only be its current size now, if it has been smaller in the past, much smaller in fact
5) Packing all of the matter in the universe into a much smaller universe means increasing the energy density and temperature tremendously, thus it is theorised that the universe has expanded from a very small, dense and hot state.
6) This hypothesis makes several testable predictions, most notably the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) which should permeate all of space, if the idea of a hot and dense near initial state of the universe were correct
7) This radiation has been independently discovered by radio technicians who knew nothing of the above hypothesis and it matches the theoretical prediction excellently
8) This along several other avenues of evidence makes cosmologists confident enough to conclude that the universe likely evolved from a hot, dense, near initial state as described by the big bang theory
The theory says nothing more and nothing less. Nowhere in this do you find the words "nothing exploded into everything" because those words are nothing but a lousy straw man grossly misrepresenting what the big bang theory actually asserts.
"So water comes from fire?"
Yes. Not directly in case of the big bang, but indeed you first need baryogenesis and then primordial nucleosynthesis for atomic nuclei to form, which are a prerequisite for getting water (which is a compound made of several atoms).
Furthermore, you ask this question as if it were a great gotcha. It's not. Oxyhydrogen (a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases) can combust (i.e. "make fire") releasing energy and converting to water vapour in the process. Voilà, water coming from fire: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen#Properties
A word of caution: I'm not suggesting that this is how water formed during the big bang. The big bang didn't produce any water (or any element heavier than lithium for that matter, those were later fused in the cores of giant stars).
"It is a theory [...]"
The word theory means very different things depending on the context. A scientific theory is not the same as a wild (colloquial) "theory", i.e. a hunch. Scientific theories have to make many testable predictions. If only one of them can be falsified by experiment, the theory is a theory no more (it's considered disproved and soon disregarded). Thus far all attempts to falsify the big bang theory by experiment (checking its testable predictions) have failed.
"However as humans we need answers to unanswerable questions and cult leaders provide those easily digestible answers."
That must be the first time I've heard the big bang theory being referred to as "easily digestible".
"The universe is between your ears."
You are free to believe that. Personally I don't consider myself to be intelligent enough to come up with this remarkable universe of ours all by myself.
Furthermore, the way you phrased that makes me question whether or not you consider my ears to be a part of the universe or external to it?
> In the beginning, there was nothing.
>
> That nothing exploded into everything.
>
> So water comes from fire>?
>
> It is a theory as redonkulas as saying, the universe is turtles all the way down.
>
> However as humans we need answers to unanswerable questions and cult leaders provide those easily digestible answers.
>
> All you can ever really know for certain is the contents of your own thoughts. The universe is between your ears.
You are clearly referring to the big bang theory. Or rather a very common misconception about the big bang theory. The theory does not deal with THE Beginning. It's a theory describing the evolution and expansion of our universe AFTER it had begun (if it did so?). The theory was arrived at by interpolating the current observed expansion of the universe backwards in time. The logic is quite simple:
1) The universe as we see it today is expanding (all galaxies are moving away from us or more precisely from each other).
2) Because of the limited speed of light looking out into space also means looking backwards in time, the further you look the more time it took for the light to reach us
3) Observing how fast galaxies from different time periods are moving away from us shows that the expansion of the universe is not a new thing
4) Interpolating into the past one can conclude that the universe can only be its current size now, if it has been smaller in the past, much smaller in fact
5) Packing all of the matter in the universe into a much smaller universe means increasing the energy density and temperature tremendously, thus it is theorised that the universe has expanded from a very small, dense and hot state.
6) This hypothesis makes several testable predictions, most notably the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) which should permeate all of space, if the idea of a hot and dense near initial state of the universe were correct
7) This radiation has been independently discovered by radio technicians who knew nothing of the above hypothesis and it matches the theoretical prediction excellently
8) This along several other avenues of evidence makes cosmologists confident enough to conclude that the universe likely evolved from a hot, dense, near initial state as described by the big bang theory
The theory says nothing more and nothing less. Nowhere in this do you find the words "nothing exploded into everything" because those words are nothing but a lousy straw man grossly misrepresenting what the big bang theory actually asserts.
"So water comes from fire?"
Yes. Not directly in case of the big bang, but indeed you first need baryogenesis and then primordial nucleosynthesis for atomic nuclei to form, which are a prerequisite for getting water (which is a compound made of several atoms).
Furthermore, you ask this question as if it were a great gotcha. It's not. Oxyhydrogen (a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases) can combust (i.e. "make fire") releasing energy and converting to water vapour in the process. Voilà, water coming from fire: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen#Properties
A word of caution: I'm not suggesting that this is how water formed during the big bang. The big bang didn't produce any water (or any element heavier than lithium for that matter, those were later fused in the cores of giant stars).
"It is a theory [...]"
The word theory means very different things depending on the context. A scientific theory is not the same as a wild (colloquial) "theory", i.e. a hunch. Scientific theories have to make many testable predictions. If only one of them can be falsified by experiment, the theory is a theory no more (it's considered disproved and soon disregarded). Thus far all attempts to falsify the big bang theory by experiment (checking its testable predictions) have failed.
"However as humans we need answers to unanswerable questions and cult leaders provide those easily digestible answers."
That must be the first time I've heard the big bang theory being referred to as "easily digestible".
"The universe is between your ears."
You are free to believe that. Personally I don't consider myself to be intelligent enough to come up with this remarkable universe of ours all by myself.
Furthermore, the way you phrased that makes me question whether or not you consider my ears to be a part of the universe or external to it?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.