Thread: Before the Big Bang

Originally Posted by sloth

Are they? Have you ever tried destructing one?

Yes, they are, and yes I tried it in college. If you bisect a superstring, all of your equations will go to their asymptotes. And yes, I've tried with all five types of superstrings. And before you ask, branes are indestructible too, you are thinking of metaphysical objects as though they were physical.

The basic concept is that the current universe that we see could have originated from another dimension. Say, a fifth dimensional star explodes (or implodes. It doesn't really matter since we're in fifth dimensional terms) out into our area of empty space. And before you ask, branes are also indestructible. You are thinking of metaphysical objects as thought they were physical.

Like this: *shows you*

What you are talking about is similar to the current theories, except instead of explosions, universes are created via collisions, and they aren't solids, they are branes (which you can think of as a plane of infinite size, but in 11 dimensions.) I think you don't quite understand the concept of a dimension though The "fifth dimension" is not a super-dimension of our 3D space, it's a micro dimension, it's a fold in space. In the current mathematical formulation for the universe, there are 3 macro dimensions (length, width, and depth), 1 chronological dimension (duration), and 7 micro dimensions. And there is debate currently about reclassifying one of the micro dimensions as a something else because it doesn't behave the way the others do, it acts sort of like a secondary time dimension.

Basically, shit is crazy.

I would love it, if one of the extra dimensions was non-spacial.

I don't think I shall address the previous comments in this thread, cause after reading Ninja's last post it's blatantly clear I don't really have a lot of knowledge on the subject.

However I've always envisioned the big bang as being a single point in which all dimensions have met. Sort of like a super-singularity containing all the matter and space in the universe in which the time has stopped (don't know enough about the other dimensions to account for them). And I hold that if this view is true, then all speculation of what came before that is philosophy and not science. The first link in this thread, while interesting and curious, has not convinced me otherwise

Originally Posted by khh

I don't think I shall address the previous comments in this thread, cause after reading Ninja's last post it's blatantly clear I don't really have a lot of knowledge on the subject.

Check out my thread here:
http://www.dreamviews.com/f77/isaac-...hysics-113256/

Originally Posted by khh

However I've always envisioned the big bang as being a single point in which all dimensions have met. Sort of like a super-singularity containing all the matter and space in the universe in which the time has stopped (don't know enough about the other dimensions to account for them). And I hold that if this view is true, then all speculation of what came before that is philosophy and not science. The first link in this thread, while interesting and curious, has not convinced me otherwise

That was how most people including physicists envisioned the big bang for over 50 years, but there was always a nagging equation that wouldn't go away. Even Albert Einstein himself stated that his theory of relativity would completely fall apart in that case. It's now thought that the big bang did not originate from a singularity, but maybe have actually had several starting places that kind of merged.

M-Theory envisions the big bang like this: Beyond our universe (in the extra dimensions,) infinitely large branes, which loop, and twist, and even go through each other exist. Each brane is like a set of rules, when two branes intersect, they create an intersection, which contains some rules from one brane, and some rules from another, depending on where they touch. 13.5 billion years ago (in our timeline) two branes ran into each other, and the intersection gave us the rules of physics that we have in our universe, creating stable matter, energy... Where the two branes intersect is our universe. M-Theory isn't perfect and will take computers insane amounts of time to prove, but currently, its the only theory that can account for the big bang, all other theories completely fall apart as you get closer and closer to it.

If the universe truly started as a singularity that expanded, then the background radiation left over from it should be uniform across the universe (and it was thought to be for 50 years), when in fact we now know, it looks like this:


A way to account for this is like this, take a piece of ceran wrap and lay it on the table, then lower another piece over it. This could be analogous to how the branes collided, they don't start as a single point and expand evenly, they kinda of pick and choose where they collide and as they get closer, they fill in the space between them, then, because the branes are infinite, the intersection will just keep expanding. This is M-Theory.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It's now thought that the big bang did not originate from a singularity, but maybe have actually had several starting places that kind of merged.
(...)
A way to account for this is like this, take a piece of ceran wrap and lay it on the table, then lower another piece over it. This could be analogous to how the branes collided, they don't start as a single point and expand evenly, they kinda of pick and choose where they collide and as they get closer, they fill in the space between them, then, because the branes are infinite, the intersection will just keep expanding. This is M-Theory.

Would that imply that at some point they may pass though each other so that out universe ceases to expand, and then shrinks back the same way it expanded?

Unlikely, they seem to want to stick together.

That is fucking awesome.
I've heard a similar explanation before but I was fairly young so it makes a bit more sense now.
The saran wrap explanation is great. Except that they probably aren't flat, right?
Well I suppose that is almost impossible to answer right now. But I would think they would be some sort of almost incomprehensible matter. Since it wouldn't follow 3rd dimension rules.

Where exactly are these other universes supposed to reside?
That's probably the wrong question.... oh well.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Superstrings are indestructible, and the superstring theory has pretty much fallen apart,

very ironic statement.

Originally Posted by tommo

Except that they probably aren't flat, right?

Right, they wouldn't be flat, they can be ludacrisly complex in shape (so much so that even modern computers are unable to map them,) and they vibrate in 9 directions.

Where exactly are these other universes supposed to reside?
That's probably the wrong question.... oh well.

The nice thing about M-theory is that they don't have to reside anywhere, they just are. Only physical things reside somewhere, branes aren't physical. Think about it this way: where does time reside?

" where does time reside?"
Think about this, even some ancient Greeks, people consider morons, knew you cannot predicate of a first principle.

Hm. If they aren't physical, what are they?
I mean we're not even really sure if time exists at all, so you can't really say that it is similar to time; that it exists but doesn't really have any form or matter.

Here we go again. One cannot predicate existence of a first principle, of an element.

Originally Posted by tommo

Hm. If they aren't physical, what are they?
I mean we're not even really sure if time exists at all, so you can't really say that it is similar to time; that it exists but doesn't really have any form or matter.

They aren't matter, matter only exists in our universe, which is an infinitely small subset of the multiverse. The branes are as physical as time. They exist, they can be mathematically represented, but are very very abstract.

Phil: I used to think everything you said was nonsense, but after reading this thread I realize that you really know a thing or two that people don't know you know. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "you cannot predicate existence of a first principle?" You use a language that I don't use.

The Two-Element Metaphysics, was an understanding, a foundation, being developed by a few early Greeks, that became lost in history. It never attained to a "polished" state. It is biologically based, physically based. Plato based his work on it, The Elements of Euclid was based on it. Aristotle gave some information on it, however, he had a foot in two worlds. The fundamentals are in some of my essays on the internet archive. It is the foundation of all logic. It is the foundation of craft itself. You actually learn a part of it when you learn that there are only two methods of constructing a set--enumeration and definition--which are commensurate with material difference and form. Or again, a definition, a thing is any material whatsoever in any form what so ever. These two, material difference and form are the two elements of every thing--the foundation of every craft--of body or of mind.

When it becomes common knowledge, becomes taught and understood, it can change the world-a child would be able to fault the works of even people like Einstein.

However, since understanding language is biologically based, the majority of men may be able to repeat it, and somewhat use it, but it will not be a resident part of their fundamental psychology--i.e. they cannot understand it or really guide their mind or actions accordingly. Just as there are two elements, there are two fundamental psychological foundations.

Primitive man did not know that his beliefs and thought processes were primitive--and neither does modern man. How you think of a thing is determined by how you CAN think about things.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The Two-Element Metaphysics, was an understanding, a foundation, being developed by a few early Greeks, that became lost in history. It never attained to a "polished" state. It is biologically based, physically based. Plato based his work on it, The Elements of Euclid was based on it. Aristotle gave some information on it, however, he had a foot in two worlds. The fundamentals are in some of my essays on the internet archive. It is the foundation of all logic. It is the foundation of craft itself. You actually learn a part of it when you learn that there are only two methods of constructing a set--enumeration and definition--which are commensurate with material difference and form. Or again, a definition, a thing is any material whatsoever in any form what so ever. These two, material difference and form are the two elements of every thing--the foundation of every craft--of body or of mind.

When it becomes common knowledge, becomes taught and understood, it can change the world-a child would be able to fault the works of even people like Einstein.

However, since understanding language is biologically based, the majority of men may be able to repeat it, and somewhat use it, but it will not be a resident part of their fundamental psychology--i.e. they cannot understand it or really guide their mind or actions accordingly. Just as there are two elements, there are two fundamental psychological foundations.

Primitive man did not know that his beliefs and thought processes were primitive--and neither does modern man. How you think of a thing is determined by how you CAN think about things.

Well, sorry I asked. No just kidding. I am very curious. You present it so well without really saying anything about it that makes me want to know more. I may be reaching out on a limb here, but is there a way you could describe it in layman's terms or in such a non-geeky vocabulary? If not, I understand, could you give a link then? So you are saying something about how we use language and how we think? I understand the debate you had previously on this thread. But I don't really understand words like "commensurate" and "just as there are two elements, there are two foundations" etc. I know what you mean by modern man not knowing that his thought processes are primitive, I know that they are. And I know that people who believe one thing don't see them as beliefs but as "reality" but they see other's beliefs as "primitive" or "superstitious" or "close-minded" even though they might actually believe the same thing, just in different language. If only they could get past the language barrier.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Grammar is a synonym for logic, or do you think that the manipulation of names is different from the manipulation of names? duh.

Anyway, you illustrate why prophets are taught the way they are taught, to abstract the similie in multis, the one idea in the many examples. Without it, you call the same thing different, i.e. incapable of judgment.

Q: How many dadaists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: To get to the other side.

This is bogus astrophysics.

Before the Big Bang, there was no other universe. In fact time started at the Big Bang. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" as there is no such thing as "before the first frame" in a movie.

Originally Posted by ludr

This is bogus astrophysics.

Before the Big Bang, there was no other universe. In fact time started at the Big Bang. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" as there is no such thing as "before the first frame" in a movie.

There are many, many physicists who would disagree with you.

Originally Posted by ludr

This is bogus astrophysics.

Before the Big Bang, there was no other universe. In fact time started at the Big Bang. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" as there is no such thing as "before the first frame" in a movie.[/QUOTE
What do you mean "time started at the big bang"? What does it mean for "time to start"? and how could it start at a particular "time". WTF is "time" even? How do you draw the parallel between "the big bang" and the first frame of a movie?

You seem to be carrying some assumptions concerning these things. The big bang is a model to describe certain empirical facts and nothing more.

The Universe doesnt work like a movie tho, the movie only started because of whatever conditions you created. if you are considering a movie and the universe alike, then i think theyre saying something had to be there first to press the play button.... correct??

More on this:
World-Class Team Says: "Time was Inherited from an Earlier Universe"