Is the big bang theory true?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Except we don't know what was here before the universe. The science currently gives us an idea of what the universe could have been just after the big bang. Nothing from before.

Why can't they? Why couldn't it? We are talking about an event so completely unknown that we have no real idea of what is and isn't possible.

What do you mean by before the big bang? The standard model of big bang cosmology is about space, time, matter and energy all coming into existence. If everything physical comes into being at the big bang then how can there be anything before it?

Quantum fluctuations don't exist until after the big bang has happened which is why it cannot be causal. Of course quantum fluctuations may explain how the wheels got set in motion which is a different proposition entirely.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
Isn't the Big Bang Theory being seriously questioned these days? (By mainstream science I mean, not creationists or any other hokum)
It's even observable, as they can detect the residual radiation - not to mention the effects of the universe expansion.

While it may require refining & still the debate is open as to what caused it - but as to if a huge explosion like event occurred as early as we know then it's a pretty solid theory from what I've read.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
What do you mean by before the big bang? The standard model of big bang cosmology is about space, time, matter and energy all coming into existence. If everything physical comes into being at the big bang then how can there be anything before it?

Quantum fluctuations don't exist until after the big bang has happened which is why it cannot be causal. Of course quantum fluctuations may explain how the wheels got set in motion which is a different proposition entirely.

Our universe comes in to existence. It says nothing about it being the first universe, or other dimensions etc. you can very much have something before the big bang.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Our universe comes in to existence. It says nothing about it being the first universe, or other dimensions etc. you can very much have something before the big bang.

We must be misunderstanding definitions somewhere. How are you defining the universe?

If all matter and energy came into existence at the big bang then how can anything exist before that?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
We must be misunderstanding definitions somewhere. How are you defining the universe?

If all matter and energy came into existence at the big bang then how can anything exist before that?

Becuase what is described as the universe, is just are part of the universe. The bit that came into existence in the big bang.

Dimensions and even other universes could of existed before are universe, and can exist along side our universe.
This all comes back to string theory which needs more dimensions, and M-theory in particular which need 11 dimensions and made out of branes. When branes collide against each other, you create a big bang. This stuff did exist before our universe and there should be many universes out there. If the theory is correct.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Becuase what is described as the universe, is just are part of the universe. The bit that came into existence in the big bang.

Dimensions and even other universes could of existed before are universe, and can exist along side our universe.

If matter and energy came into existence then that means nothing existed before it.

Similarly, you mention 'before the big bang'. This statement doesn't make any sense because there is no such thing as before the big bang as that is where time itself began.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
If matter and energy came into existence then that means nothing existed before it.

Similarly, you mention 'before the big bang'. This statement doesn't make any sense because there is no such thing as before the big bang as that is where time itself began.

Not at all.
Yo're thinking to small.

In our universe nothing existed before the big bang, that does not mean theres not a bigger universe out there beyound are own.
This is lacking of your understanding, many scientists belive there is a bigger universe and not just m-theory either.

Read parrarel worlds by michio kaku.


Why is part of our universe, being accelrated faster than the rest of it, like theres a gravational pull, from something beyound our universe, its something that as of yet hasn't been expalined.
But where multiveres theroeys explain it but obviusly are hard to prove.

M-theory fits all knowen observations and LHC might find a few things it predicted around super symmetry, but its unlikely to ever be fully testable, at least not in any resonable time frame.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
So what would a bigger daddy universe be composed of given that matter and energy only came into existence at the big bang. I'm aware of the multiverse theories but there is absolutely no evidence that such a multiverse even exists.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
So what would a bigger daddy universe be composed of given that matter and energy only came into existence at the big bang. I'm aware of the multiverse theories but there is absolutely no evidence that such a multiverse even exists.

Branes and no matter and energy didnt come into exist then. Likely with millions of other universes before ours and millions after ours.

Our universe came into existence then. So the energy and matter in the observable universe came into existence then. Not everything. Just thestuff inside our little bubble universe.

Theres noo evidence for a lot of theoretical ohysics, thats why its theoretical.
Theres n o evidence for what cretaed the big bang, so saying it came from nothing and nothing existed before it, is just as silly.
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
What do you mean by before the big bang? The standard model of big bang cosmology is about space, time, matter and energy all coming into existence. If everything physical comes into being at the big bang then how can there be anything before it?

We don't know is the simple answer. There may have been nothing before it, there may have been another universe before it, there may have been another state before it, we just don't know. What we do know is what happened just after it.

Quantum fluctuations don't exist until after the big bang has happened which is why it cannot be causal.

Well if the universe was nothing before the big bang and the sum total of energy currently in the universe is nothing then the big bang could just have been one of many such fluctuations, understanding dark matter may go some of the way to explaining what the universe is made of and possibly how it started. Or it might not.

Of course quantum fluctuations may explain how the wheels got set in motion which is a different proposition entirely.

Unless the zero state universe has always existed and the quantum fluctuations that caused the "physical universe" to come in to existence were part of that?
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Branes and no matter and energy didnt come into exist then. Likely with millions of other universes before ours and millions after ours.

Our universe came into existence then. So the energy and matter in the observable universe came into existence then. Not everything. Just thestuff inside our little bubble universe.

Theres noo evidence for a lot of theoretical ohysics, thats why its theoretical.
Theres n o evidence for what cretaed the big bang, so saying it came from nothing and nothing existed before it, is just as silly.

Well the standard model of cosmology is all about space, time, matter and energy coming into existence. If branes have properties and are within space-time then they came into existence at the big bang. The universe is the total of existence.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
Well the standard model of cosmology is all about space, time, matter and energy coming into existence. If branes have properties and are within space-time then they came into existence at the big bang. The universe is the total of existence.

Not at all. Again your are thinking to small.

Its only our universe that cam into being.
Do you relay think you know better than theortical ohysicists and can just chuck there equitions and theropies in the bin?

Branes are not within our universe, they existed before, they arent within our 4dimensions.

The big bang doesnt even deal with the moment of existence or anything before it, it is like evolution, deals with the moment just after and how it went from there.

Why are you so dismissive?

Theres two universes. The obsevable onen where nwe exist, which is what you are on about. Then everything which ever existed, which is probably not just the observable universe.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Not at all. Again your are thinking to small.

Its only our universe that cam into being.
Do you relay think you know better than theortical ohysicists and can just chuck there equitions and theropies in the bin?

The big bang doesnt even deal with the moment of existence or anything before it, it is like evolution, deals with the moment just after and how it went from there.

Why are you so dismissive?

Theres two universes. The obsevable one, which is what you are on about. Then everything which ever existed, which is probably not just the obepservable universe.

Well then you must be defining the universe as something different from the standard definition of the totality of existence. There is zero evidence for another universe and I'm not sure it's even possible to ever verify if there is.

The big bang is where time began to exist. The concept of "before the big bang" is just logically incoherent.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
You seem to be confusing the concept of Dimensions with Universe's...Branes may or may not be extraneous to our Universe, our Universe may or may not consist of more than 4 Dimensions.

Branes, in their various forms are objects exist within the Universe or Multiverse depending upon the concept hypothesis being discussed, some are posited to exist in higher dimensions, however I think you are confusing this with the idea that the Big Bang only created a four dimensional universe and that Brane-Cosmology hypothesises that the Multiverse or indeed Branes were extant prior to the Big Bang.

Ringo747 is correct insofar that there is no evidence for the hypothesis you are pushing, and neither is there any requirement for such a (Brane) multiverse concept within String or M-Theory.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
Well then you must be defining the universe as something different from the standard definition of the totality of existence. There is zero evidence for another universe and I'm not sure it's even possible to ever verify if there is.

The big bang is where time began to exist. The concept of "before the big bang" is just logically incoherent.

Again wrong. Its just as science has evolved the definitions had to evolve.
There is zero saying our universe is the only thing to exist.
Common language vs science.

There is zero evidence that nothing existed before the big bang.
Time started in our universe. This in no wya implies noothing existed before the big bang.
Again gon read parralel worlds or similar.
Or will you just maintain you know more than the leading physcitcists.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
You seem to be confusing the concept of Dimensions with Universe's...Branes may or may not be extraneous to our Universe, our Universe may or may not consist of more than 4 Dimensions.

Branes, in their various forms are objects exist within the Universe or Multiverse depending upon the concept hypothesis being discussed, some are posited to exist in higher dimensions, however I think you are confusing this with the idea that the Big Bang only created a four dimensional universe and that Brane-Cosmology hypothesises that the Multiverse or indeed Branes were extant prior to the Big Bang.

Ringo747 is correct insofar that there is no evidence for the hypothesis you are pushing, and neither is there any requirement for such a (Brane) multiverse concept within String or M-Theory.

i was truing keeping it simple. Some of the diminsions are meant to be in the size of the plank for example, but it doesnt realy help nthis discusion going inton that.

The problem is theres two dipefinitions of universe. And hes using one and denying the other exists.

Our universe in otherwords pretty much the observable universe. Then the absoultly everything in existence deffnition.

Ive allready siad theres no evidence, but then theres no evidence for the big bang came from nothing either. As its a total un kowen. However things like m-theory do fit all knowen observations. So can not be so easily descridited. It doesnt mean it will be verified. But so far iit isnt wrong either.
 
Last edited:

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
Ringo747 is correct insofar that there is no evidence for the hypothesis you are pushing, and neither is there any requirement for such a (Brane) multiverse concept within String or M-Theory.

At the moment there is no evidence for anything pre big bang so all we have are hypotheses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top