The Big Bang time paradox

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Vesayen
A simpler analogy?

What color is the taste of an apple? What does is the sound of a sight?

The question asks for a mismatched description.

Ask a synaesthete that. They have a valid answer.

[Ned]

If we cannot say that "time" existed before the Big Bang, can we say or postulate that anything existed before the event?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
But you must admit their popular topics of lay debate so please present your side on these issues or the current theories if they are different.

There are no current theories by reputable scientists. They are not a proper area for scientific discussion yet. Wait a few decades.

I've heard the discover of Dark-Energy has ruled out any chance of the Universe re-collapsing aka Big-Crunch, instead it will exist forever continualy expanding and diluting all heat and matter in the classic heat-death-of-the-universe senario.

He can rule out what he wants. If dark energy is a true cosmological constant (w = -1) then he is correct. However, if w = w(Z) then he may be incorrect.

That would seemingly rule out any kind of cyclical nature as was mentioned earlier. Is that still the excepted theory?

Why? It's possible for the Universe to have undergone a finite number of cycles and exit the loop. There is no accepted theory on the origin of the Universe. There is no proper scientific theory at all. Anybody with half a brain can come up with a dozen different models for the creation of the Universe which are self-consistent and also consistent with all known data. That's not science; it's science fiction.

Lastly fill us in on your specific area of study/research if you could.

I study the CMB, do simulations of dark matter decay and try to apply next-to-minimal-supersymmetry to cosmological models.

[KrazyHorse]

Thats consistent with what I have heard but the threads author was interested in the paradoxical and conceptual nature of the "begining of time".

Who the **** said time had a beginning?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, in the meantime you can just make something up. Have fun coming up with a scientific explanation of the "beginning of time" that doesn't sound like utterly paradoxical nonsense.

EDIT: Addressed to ZKrib.

The "Big Bounce" theory (which more accurately should be called the Big Bounce hypothosis) doesn't provice for a Beginning of Time:

The universe collapses in on itself and then explodes, expands, slows and then contracts into another state of collapse, re-explodes, etc. I've never seen a proposed mechanism for the explosing, but my own pet concept is the collisions between matter and anti-matter, which will occur more often as the universe contracts.

Oh, but your post reminds me:

Don Juan: I've loved you since the beginning of time.
Pretty Lady: But we only met this morning!
Don Juan: Yes, and that is when time began.

[KrazyHorse]

I've never seen a proposed mechanism for the explosing, but my own pet concept is the collisions between matter and anti-matter, which will occur more often as the universe contracts.

That is ruled out. No known physical mechanism can explain inflation. People usually postulate the existence of an inflatonic field with some sort of odd self-interaction.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Thats consistent with what I have heard but the threads author was interested in the paradoxical and conceptual nature of the "begining of time".

Who the **** said time had a beginning?

Maybe nobody did. I just mentioned a paradox which occurs if we say that time began at X instant.

[KrazyHorse]

So you're arguing what we call a "strawman"?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So you're arguing what we call a "strawman"?

No. I posted something I thought interesting, hoping that someone would explain it to me if they knew better.

[KrazyHorse]

Consider yourself educated, then.

[aneeshm]

But the paradox remains - which means that time cannot have a beginning.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Richelieu
I want to talk about ether. Will i be quartered?

Michelson Morley

[Diadem]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I love watching people who either lack the motivation or the intellect to actually learn physics try to poke holes in theories created by their betters.

Such arrogance.

Not everybody has the time to study physics in dept. I can not blame them, it takes several years to understand stuff like this.

As far as I'm aware, this does not make them lesser human beings. Also, it does not forbid them from speculating about such fundamental questions as 'where do we come from'.

As a true physicist, I am always glad when people show an interest in my profession. Even if they get the details wrong, at least they are interested. And as long as they are asking questions, like the topicstarter did, they are interested in hearing answers. That's good.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Impaler got it basically correct though didn't he?

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not particularly...

So not only are you arrogant, you are also ignorant. Impaler's answer was spot on. In fact it's not often you see such a clear explanation of the philosophical problem.

The concept of 'time before time' is meaningless. Just like the concept of 'space outside space' is meaningless. Something that does not exist does not have properties. Space and Time were created along with the universe. While this does not explain why the universe is there, it does explain the question aneeshm asked, about time before the Big Bang.

The Universe was in existence. Then something caused it to expand rapidly. Then something caused the rapid expansion to stop. At no point does time disappear from the model.

Ah, so it's turtles all the way down, after all?

Cosmology says nothing about the origin of the pre-expansion Universe. Maybe it was there forever. Maybe not. Maybe it had already expanded and contracted before. Maybe not. We have no data. We don't even understand the middle step (inflation) very well, so postulating about anything further back is pretty useless.

Cosmology cannot, indeed. But philosophy can. And behold! The topic starter's question was a philosophical one.

Anyway for someone who claims to be a professional cosmologist you are surprisingly badly informed about matters. Claiming there is no big bang, just inflation? Since when is inflation theory a replacement of the big bang theory? It's a refinement, nothing more. The basic theory of the 'big bang' still stands as soundly as ever.

Our physics can not describe the Big Bang itself. But we can infere that a Big Bang must have taken place. That is, we can convidently state that everything we can observe must once have been compressed together into a infinitessimally small point. If that point was all there is or not, we can not know. We we do know that everything we can see started from that point. The infamous Big Bang.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


? No.

Oh, a book I read a few years back said something about the universe starting as a singularity. Guess that view has went out of favor now.

[LordShiva]

I think Diadem just owned this thread

BTW, who is that Diadem fellow anyway?