Is the big bang theory true?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
How do you classify between what is in our universe and what isn't?

If there is a multiverse as you are suggesting, despite the lack of evidence, is there any reason to think that it is eternal?
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
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.

What science?

So far there is no empirical evidence to support Large Extra Dimensions which are inherent in the hypothesis you are (wrongly as far as I can see) saying is now part of the a Standard Model...in fact information from the LHC would suggest the opposite and according to some high energy physics experiments with the LHC there are significant limitations on those models which require such hypotheses.

Brane Cosmology Models are interesting, but as yet they have not superseded the Standard Model..at best some have given some form of hypotheses to explain weak gravity.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
What science?

So far there is no empirical evidence to support Large Extra Dimensions which are inherent in the hypothesis you are (wrongly as far as I can see) saying is now part of the a Standard Model...in fact information from the LHC would suggest the opposite and according to some high energy physics experiments with the LHC there are significant limitations on those models which require such hypotheses.

Brane Cosmology Models are interesting, but as yet they have not superseded the Standard Model..at best some have given some form of hypotheses to explain weak gravity.

What. Where have i siad its fact? And non of these theories are standard models, they are. Models for superceeding standard model, with the unified model.
Its a theory a valid theroy, but a theory. So no try again.

There is also ZERO evidence for nothing existing before the big bang, its an un kowen.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
How do you classify between what is in our universe and what isn't?

If there is a multiverse as you are suggesting, despite the lack of evidence, is there any reason to think that it is eternal?

Theree is zero evidence for the big bang comeing from nothing. So wheres your evidence for it? Oh wiat there is none. Because before and the moment of the big bang is u nkowen, with lots of competing theories.
This is the difference, im saying theres lots of competing theories. Where you wrongly think theres ebidence for nothing before the big bang.

How do you calify. Its rather easy. Our universe, containing galaxies etc.
Then things like external dimensions and what ever was there before the big bang.

Something must of been eternal.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Theree is zero evidence for the big bang comeing from nothing. So wheres your evidence for it? Oh wiat there is none. Because before and the moment of the big bang is u nkowen, with lots of competing theories.
This is the difference, im saying theres lots of competing theories. Where you wrongly think theres ebidence for nothing before the big bang.

How do you calify. Its rather easy. Our universe, containing galaxies etc.
Then things like external dimensions and what ever was there before the big bang.

Something must of been eternal.

If matter and energy only come into existence at the big bang then that implies that there was nothing before it. How can you navigate beyond a space time boundary?

If we go outside of time and space then we enter the realm of metaphysics instead of science surely.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
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.

M-Theory doesn't require the kind of Braneworld Scenario you are saying supercedes the Standard Model.

I do not think that Ringo is saying that the Observable Universe is absolute either, he is saying that there is no evidence that there was anything pre-Big Bang or rather that the Big Bang was the beginning of The Universe within what we would call the Physical Laws...and the various Brane related theories (with a few exceptions such as Cyclic and Pre-Big Bang hypotheses) do not require there to be either as the dimensions required may well be inherent in that moment of creation...essentially the difference between you is that Ringo is referring to a prevailing hypotheses based on observable evidence and you are referring to one of many hypothetical models based on speculative physics.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
If matter and energy only come into existence at the big bang then that implies that there was nothing before it. How can you navigate beyond a space time boundary?

If we go outside of time and space then we enter the realm of metaphysics instead of science surely.

Its not navigatable. And matter and energy might not be the only thing.
And again the big bang theory does not stat what you are saying.
Big bamg theorie does not say its the only possible one. There may of been many big bangs, creating many universes. But you cant travel from one to the other.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
M-Theory doesn't require the kind of Braneworld Scenario you are saying supercedes the Standard Model.

I do not think that Ringo is saying that the Observable Universe is absolute either, he is saying that there is no evidence that there was anything pre-Big Bang or rather that the Big Bang was the beginning of The Universe within what we would call the Physical Laws...and the various Brane related theories (with a few exceptions such as Cyclic and Pre-Big Bang hypotheses) do not require there to be either as the dimensions required may well be inherent in that moment of creation...essentially the difference between you is that Ringo is referring to a prevailing hypotheses based on observable evidence and you are referring to one of many hypothetical models based on speculative physics.

Im not saying it dies superceed, im saying it could. Its a viable theory, which is not proven wrong, everything it can show is verified. Again this isnt about one theory. Its about showing how he is wtong on his assumptions that there couldnt of been anything before the big bang.

And also just like you before, he also doesnt seem to undersaptand the big bang does not state anything about pre or the instant of the big bang.

We do know the standard model is wrong and at some point will be superceed, with what who knows. String theory and its off shoots like m-rptheiry are possibilities.
Again im not saying they are right. But they do show its perfectly possible for things to exost befire our littke universe.

And no the difference is, he maintains theres nothing before the big bang, backed up with ZERO evidence. Where im saying theres lots of theories, and many of them state there is stuff before the big bang. Thats the differnece, his is an absolute position based on misunderstanding, where mine is open.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
If matter and energy only come into existence at the big bang then that implies that there was nothing before it. How can you navigate beyond a space time boundary?

If we go outside of time and space then we enter the realm of metaphysics instead of science surely.

There are several speculative models that try to envisage a position whereby the Expanding Universe came into being either by a collision of these Branes or as a substrata of a higher dimensional universe....however it seems that experiments with the LHC severely limit many of these hypotheses.

Branes as posited in String or M-Theory generally exist and propagate within Space-time, and therefore if Space-time was born at the moment of the Big Bang then we can see why such theories are speculative in nature. (More so than the Standard Model that is)
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
8,189
Even if the multiverse does exist then it just pushes the question back a level to 'what caused the multiverse'.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
Even if the multiverse does exist then it just pushes the question back a level to 'what caused the multiverse'.

Of course it does and always will do, regardless of the theory. Doesnt matter what theory you use, they wil all require some underlying thing to have existed for ever.

But there is zero evidence for big bang comes from nothing and no real theories on it coming from nothing either. The big bang theory doesnt even deal with these questions. It deals with what happens moments after the creation of our universe.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Im not saying it dies superceed, im saying it could. Its a viable theory, which is not proven wrong, everything it can show is verified. Again this isnt about one theory. Its about showing how he is wtong on his assumptions that there couldnt of been anything before the big bang.

And also just like you before, he also doesnt seem to undersaptand the big bang does not state anything about pre or the instant of the big bang.

We do know the standard model is wrong and at some point will be superceed, with what who knows. String theory and its off shoots like m-rptheiry are possibilities.
Again im not saying they are right. But they do show its perfectly possible for things to exost befire our littke universe.

It's not a single theory however....the Randall–Sundrum model's to which you appear to be referring within that theory are, since 2010, severely limited by evidence coming from high energy experiments at the LHC.

This is the point I am trying to make...you have on several occasions definitively stated Ringo is wrong, and yet your own position is untenable when we look at what is known also. M-Theory and String Theory are indeed possibilities, but the Standard Model, even with its gravitational issues is still the consensus thus far..also I would point out that neither String nor M-Theory require there to have been anything prior to the Big Bang or that the Universe created by the Big Bang is not multiversal or super-dimensional, that is limited to several offshoots in and of themselves...like the Randall–Sundrum models mentioned.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
It's not a single theory however....the Randall–Sundrum model's to which you appear to be referring within that theory are, since 2010, severely limited by evidence coming from high energy experiments at the LHC.

This is the point I am trying to make...you have on several occasions definitively stated Ringo is wrong, and yet your own position is untenable when we look at what is known also. M-Theory and String Theory are indeed possibilities, but the Standard Model, even with its gravitational issues is still the consensus thus far..also I would point out that neither String nor M-Theory require there to have been anything prior to the Big Bang, that is limited to several offshoots in and of themselves...like the Randall–Sundrum models mentioned.

He is wrong. He can not state theres no posisble way anything existed before the big bang, we dont know that, there is ZERO evedience for nthat. So yes he is utterly wrong with that postion.

I was using m-theory, as an example of how things can exist before b ig bang, as do several other theories.
M-theory does require stuff to exist before the big bang. String theorpy and m-thorey are not the same.anyway it wasnt which was right, it was Ringos positioon is wrong, he can n ot declare that nothing existed before the big bang as fact. Its simply unkowen. He seems to thing big bang theory states something it doesnt.

Yes standard model is the consense, as its the best that fits, it os wrong though, we know its wrong. But untill we come up with a unified model it can still be used for claculations as long as you know its limitations.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Even if the multiverse does exist then it just pushes the question back a level to 'what caused the multiverse'.

Indeed...and a multiverse may well have been bought into existence (at least as we can define it within our perception) at that singular moment.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Jan 2005
Posts
8,183
Location
leeds
If matter and energy only come into existence at the big bang then that implies that there was nothing before it. How can you navigate beyond a space time boundary?

If we go outside of time and space then we enter the realm of metaphysics instead of science surely.

thats the problem, as if there is anything outside/before the universe then it likely bares no resemblance to anything in our universe and is probably impossible for us to even conceive, let alone find out.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
He is wrong. He can not state theres no posisble way anything existed before the big bang, we dont know that, there is ZERO evedience for nthat. So yes he is utterly wrong with that postion.

I don't think he was offering that position in the first place. He was offering the position that the Universe (as we define it today) was created at the point of the Big Bang and that the Universe, as we understand it within the Standard Model is a closed system. Whether that system is multi-dimensional, Multiversal or simply Observable is immaterial.

I was using m-theory, as an example of how things can exist before b ig bang, as do several other theories.
M-theory does require stuff to exist before the big bang. String theorpy and m-thorey are not the same.anyway it wasnt which was right, it was Ringos positioon is wrong, he can n ot declare that nothing existed before the big bang as fact. Its simply unkowen. He seems to thing big bang theory states something it doesnt.

M-Theory doesn't require Branes to be extent outside of Space-time. Some models based on M-Theory postulate it, but as I said these are largely based on Large Extra Dimensions and subsequent experimentation within the LHC has severely restricted those hypotheses. I know that M-Theory and String Theory are not the same, hence why I mentioned both separately.

And again, Ringo doesn't appear to be stating definitively that nothing existed before the Big Bang, in fact given his beliefs I would be very surprised if he thought there was absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang. I feel you have misunderstood him somewhat.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,632
I don't think he was offering that position in the first place. He was offering the position that the Universe (as we define it today) was created at the point of the Big Bang and that the Universe, as we understand it within the Standard Model is a closed system. Whether that system is multi-dimensional, Multiversal or simply Observable is immaterial.

.

Re read the thread, you seem to of been lost. This is exactly what he was saying, nothing could of existed before the big bang, there is zero evidence for this postion. I dont feel i have misunderstood him as i have claified many poin ts using m-theory as an example. And yet he continues to state that nothing existed before the big bang, again he seems to misunderstand what the big bang theory actually is. And isntead thinks its the common misconceptions.

Come on then lets see the lhc conclusion and limitations and you really seem to be talking from nothing.
Are you talking about the sypersymmetry results by any chance?
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
53,872
Location
Stoke on Trent
I know the OP was a returnee but you should have let him stick around for his own thread :(

I would have asked him why if God made the Universe around us why did he stick us nowhere near the centre?
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Re read the thread, you seem to of been lost. This is exactly what he was saying, nothing could of existed before the big bang, there is zero evidence for this postion. I dont feel i have misunderstood him as i have claified many poin ts using m-theory as an example. And yet he continues to state that nothing existed before the big bang, again he seems to misunderstand what the big bang theory actually is.

I do not need to reread the thread, I disagree with your summation of what Ringo is saying in any definitive way...I feel he is asking the question within the understanding of the Standard Model rather than telling you it is impossible for anything to exist prior to the big-bang. Given he is a theist, it would be illogical to assume he believes that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, it would be contrary to his core beliefs. I am certainly not lost, I simply disagree with your interpretation of what Ringo is asking. It certainly isn't worth getting adversarial about.

Come on then lets see the lhc conclusion and limitations and you really seem to be talking from nothing.

I am sorry you feel it necessary to be so adversarial. A simple wiki search would have borne out the points I have made, the accusations that I am talking out of ignorance are unwarranted and unnecessary Glaucus.

Here is the relevant information.

Experiments conducted by Cornell into High Energy Physics....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375.

And the wiki reference:

As of now, no experimental or observational evidence of large extra dimensions, as required by the Randall–Sundrum models, has been reported. An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains theories with large extra dimensions.

The only person thus far I have seen state (definitively) that something must have been eternal is you.

Something must of been eternal.

Just as there is no requirement that there be nothing prior to the Big Bang, there is also no requirement that there was something. It is interesting that you believe something must be eternal and Ringo also believes such, albeit both from very different perspectives.
 
Last edited:

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
If matter and energy only come into existence at the big bang then that implies that there was nothing before it. How can you navigate beyond a space time boundary?

Or it implies there was no energy and matter before it, not that there was nothing.

If we go outside of time and space then we enter the realm of metaphysics instead of science surely.

Or we go beyond what science can currently tell us, but we have been there before and science has a habit of surprising us, so who knows what we might find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top