Before the Big Bang...

However, you could say that the multiverse is contained within the universe.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on August 12, 2007, 06:32:32 PM

Except for a singularity: All mass compressed into an infinitely small point.

Nah, there was nothing. Then god the turtle shit out our ball of matter from his dimension...kind of like explosive diarrhea, hence the Big Bang.

Multiverse traditionally means the collection of universes across dimensions and such. Something like the, now disproven, Hawking paradox and information loss in black holes to alternate universes.

Quote from: narcberry on August 13, 2007, 10:12:01 AM

Multiverse traditionally means the collection of universes across dimensions and such. Something like the, now disproven, Hawking paradox and information loss in black holes to alternate universes.

Hawking Paradox disproven? Are you refering to Hawking Radiation? If so what is the new theory?

Look at our known universe. If you consider the probability of matter in the universe we have explored, how can you ignore the possibility that matter exists beyond our "big bang sytem?"

Let's say that the probability of encountering matter outside our bbs is 0.0001% for every cubic lightyear. If accurate, that means there is matter outside our bbs. This is true, no matter what the probability/space unless you can prove a 0%, something that has yet to be done but is still assumed. It's sillyness.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on August 12, 2007, 06:32:32 PM

Quote from: divito on August 03, 2007, 02:31:26 PM

You want to know what was before the Big Bang? Nothingness. No matter, no time, nothing.

Except for a singularity: All mass compressed into an infinitely small point.

Why do people only consider our singularity, our big bang, and our expanding universe? How could a literally infinite universe not contain anything else? This seems highly improbable.

Quote from: narcberry on August 13, 2007, 09:12:21 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on August 12, 2007, 06:32:32 PM

Quote from: divito on August 03, 2007, 02:31:26 PM

You want to know what was before the Big Bang? Nothingness. No matter, no time, nothing.

Except for a singularity: All mass compressed into an infinitely small point.

Why do people only consider our singularity, our big bang, and our expanding universe? How could a literally infinite universe not contain anything else? This seems highly improbable.

Because the universe was also compressed into the singularity. If you were outside of the singularity you weren't in the universe. There would be no up no down no time no space. It's unimaginable.

Everything is the blanket.

Explain yourself.

Before the Big Bang does not exist now, thus we will not know.

Quote from: Raist on August 21, 2007, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: narcberry on August 13, 2007, 09:12:21 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on August 12, 2007, 06:32:32 PM

Quote from: divito on August 03, 2007, 02:31:26 PM

You want to know what was before the Big Bang? Nothingness. No matter, no time, nothing.

Except for a singularity: All mass compressed into an infinitely small point.

Why do people only consider our singularity, our big bang, and our expanding universe? How could a literally infinite universe not contain anything else? This seems highly improbable.

Because the universe was also compressed into the singularity. If you were outside of the singularity you weren't in the universe. There would be no up no down no time no space. It's unimaginable.

I have 2 problems with that:
1) The universe is the entirety of space and all that is contained therein. It is not a set of matter, loosely defined.
2) The big bang, which is still highly theoretical, would've occurred when the amount of mass contained in the singularity reached some finite amount. Just like with a black hole, there is a particular finite number that would represent the amount of matter density in order to transition into a black hole or a singularity, or an exploding singularity. At the level of a singularity, since the matter is occupying the same space, density is infinite and the theoretical number we are seeking would be an amount of mass instead of a density. Long story short: saying the universe is our big bang system derived from a single singularity is to directly state the universe has a quantifiable amount of matter. This is very literally saying, because we cannot see it, it cannot exist. It is highly probable that matter exists outside of our big bang system. Since this is the case, it is highly probable there are many (infinite really) big bang systems. This means the universe is likely composed of many big bang systems. This means you missed my point and are wrong to a probabilistic certainty.

I know, What i am saying is SPACE/TIME was compressed into a singular point. The universe was the size of a singularity. Hence nothing could be outside of it.

Quote from: Raist on September 25, 2007, 05:48:47 AM

I know, What i am saying is SPACE/TIME was compressed into a singular point. The universe was the size of a singularity. Hence nothing could be outside of it.

But a singularity explodes when its infinite density reaches some x infinity (yes, this does seem like a hole in the big bang theory). So what you are really saying is that the universe has a finite amount of matter, and that finite quantity is exactly the amount required to explode a singularity. This is why I disagree with you, I am convinced there is infinite matter in the universe.

Also, are you saying universe as in a big bang system, or universe as in absolutely-freaking-everything?

Most physicists agree that the big bang was not a single event, but implies a series or a big bang cycle.

Option A:
1: Matter collects
2: Matter becomes to massy and explodes
3: Universe grows
4: Universe slows then begins to collapse in on itself
5: Goto 1

Option B (continued from option A at step 3):
4: The univserse gets colder
5: Matter slowly decays into lead
6: We are left with a lifeless universe, devoid of energy and consisting entirely of fine lead distributed over a tremendous distance.

Option C (continues from option B at step 5):
6: Our universe, at different areas, collide with other expanding universes
7: Our reference changes to one of these collisions
8: The matter begins to collapse in on itself
9: Go to 1


Most scientists believe option A to be the correct model for our universe, considering the amount of time that has passed before our existance (infinite) and the fact that we exist. Option C is rarely considered, but is the model I beleive in.

EDIT: Divito may have taken some liberties with his version.  But he was obviously trying to present the story in a more scientific context.  I mean, it's just backwards to think the world is only 6000 years old!  I'd even say it's no better than believing the earth is flat!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/national/main676663.shtml

Quote from: The Yattering on September 24, 2007, 08:35:34 PM

EDIT: Divito may have taken some liberties with his version.  But he was obviously trying to present the story in a more scientific context.  I mean, it's just backwards to think the world is only 6000 years old!  I'd even say it's no better than believing the earth is flat!

Er, liberties in regards to what?

There isn't infinite matter though. The universe is a finite size, and can only contain a finite amount of matter.

If space has a limit, then all space would be finite.

Until we agree on what is considered "space" this argument is pointless and i am not going into a stupid "frame of reference" style argument. So, let us agree that the other will never agree, and move on.

Quote from: Raist on September 26, 2007, 04:43:16 PM

If space has a limit, then all space would be finite.

Until we agree on what is considered "space" this argument is pointless and i am not going into a stupid "frame of reference" style argument. So, let us agree that the other will never agree, and move on.

Nothing to do with for's. Two definitions of 'universe' exist. The traditional one, means the limitless space, all and everything. The modern one meaning the space our big bang system is limited to. For some reason the modern version has become the popular definition based on a theory that cannot be proven. The problem comes when pseudo-intellectuals use one definition while talking about the other. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. Many scientists consider it Hawking fiction, and no more than fun reading. It is so full of holes, and dependant on so many unknowns, yet we use it as a foundation for our terminology and referencings. It's absolutely silly.

I agree about finite space only being able to hold a finite amount matter. But wait, why do you think that? If the entire universe can be contained within a volume of no dimension, a singularity, how do reconcile that you think infinite mass is possible and yet not? Which is it?

And you avoided so many of my questions about the nature of the big bang. The most relevant being, how does an infinitely dense object explode in response to itself being too dense? Meaning, at which infinity does infinite mass become too massy?

The scientific community has made the mistake of blind acceptance before. And not just in the distant past. In fact, even with Hawking. When Hawking asserted that information is lost in a black hole, the paradox was readily accepted by the majority of the scientific body. This was true for decades. Subsciences, like string theory, were based on it. Today we have the same problem with the big bang. Why are you so blindly accepting this notion? What happens when we disprove the theory, as Hawking disproved his own paradox? Will you continue to hold to the big bang? Will you continue to make your assumptions and false phrasings? Seriously, the universe has always meant the entirety of space, without any bounds imposed by highly theoretical conjecture.