Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Time may have existed previously to this universe

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion GOD
  • Date de début Date de début

GOD

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
14/1/06
Messages
14 944
Physicists Claim Evidence of Universe Before Big Bang - Time may have existed previously to this universe

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Physicis ... 7494.shtml

What was before this universe is currently anybody's guess, but it is highly likely that it was proceeded by similar universe
and therefore time existed before the Big Bang. The evidence is said to be found in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation left behind by the light created when the universe was only 400,000 years old and could explain why time appears to move only in a single direction, when logic says it should be reversible.

The CMB fills the entire space of the universe in all directions and although it is generally relatively smooth, it does contain some temperature fluctuations which are associated with the galaxy clusters we see today in the visible universe. The same fluctuations could be evidence of the fact that the current universe inflated from a previous one, says Dr Adrienne Erickcek from the California Institute for Technology.

According to Erickcek and her colleagues, the data provided by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe points towards a scenario in which the current universe suddenly expanded into space.

"A universe could form inside this room and we'd never know," said the co-author of the study Professor Sean Caroll at the American Astronomical Society, because the phenomenon would be rather unspectacular. The study originally started as an attempt to explain why time moves only in one direction. Caroll says that although the laws of physics allow time to be completely reversible on the microscopic scale, on the macroscopic scale this never happens.

It is widely believed that this is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that a system will always evolve from a low to a high entropy, simply put, from a highly ordered system to complete disorder. It basically says that the universe began its life in an ordered state.

"Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you're learning about the Big Bang," said Professor Carroll.

The theory of the Caltech team is just emerging, thus there is still much work to be done before it comes on solid ground. One of the first things would be to calculate the probability of one universe being created from another. The WMAP measurements are already pointing towards a possible evidence of the presence of a previous structure from a parent universe, since temperature fluctuations in the CMB radiation appear to be about 10 percent stronger to one side of the universe.

"We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was," Professor Carroll added. If the theory is proven correct, it would be the first time when some evidence of the past history of the universe before the Big Bang is revealed.



-------------------------------------------------


On Arte at 21.00 on the 5th of june there was a documentry where they explained that the start phase of the "Big bang" was faster than the speed of light !!!!!
 
BANG-CRUNCH-BANG-CRUNCH-BANG-CRUNCH....
are atoms realy small or just far away?
 
I remember reading some sci fi story, wish I could remember exactly what it was, in it the author talked about the universe exploding "backwards" and "forwards" in time.. different than this of course, just reminded me of it.

Really interesting... their explanation of the second law of thermodynamics is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong though. That is the explanation creationists use to say "look, evolution can't happen, chaos increases." This law isn't about chaos increasing. Entropy increasing really just means that energy tends to distribute evenly in a closed system, eg a hot spot will cool down until it equals the temperature of the rest of the system (raising the temperature of the surroundings in the process). Ok, enough nitpicking, thanks for sharing :D
 
Speculative....

Making up formulas that match events is science,
making up events that match formulas is just speculation and prediction... (uncompleted scientific method)

It does open some doors for our silly earthbrain though :P
 
HeartCore a dit:
to have that big bang make sense. That makes it something like Christianity in my opinion ;)
Well the big bang doesn't have to make sense to our mind. Adding stories so it would make sense however, ruins the scientific value and makes it into something like christianity. Religion begins where science ends...

What caused the big bang? Euh.... God?? case closed

PS: terrence was a great philosopher, but a poor scientist IMO

Edit: I feel I missed your point a bit...
Science says we can make up theories as long as they match the formulas created from observations (things that make sense to us).
Relativity and astronomy have a system our brains designed for hunting and mating can't understand without extrapolating the things we DO know. (same with quantum mechanics)
 
To tell the truth , i didnt read it untill now .

If you look at the source you will see that its an article about some information from Dr Adrienne Erickcek from the California Institute for Technology , NASAs Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Professor Sean Caroll at the American Astronomical Society writen by Softpedias "Science News Editor". I`m sure that those scientists understand "The second law of thermodynamics" . In the article some parts are in inverted comas and the part about "The second law of thermodynamics" is not , so i take it that its from the "Science News Editor" of Softpedia and not from the scientists . I think that the study itself sounds very interesting .

"the universe exploding "backwards" and "forwards" in time.."

This is one of the interpretations of the "Big Bang" , there are also at least several others .

"a miracle" - " Religion begins where science ends" - "God"

Either A.C,Clarke or Carl Sagan said something like "Magic is science that some people dont understand" . I think the same goes for the words miracle and God. The christian church uses the word to justify hokus pokus as far as i`m concerned .

"terrence was a great philosopher, but a poor scientist"

Thats what his brother said to . Me to .
 
GOD a dit:
I`m sure that those scientists understand "The second law of thermodynamics" . In the article some parts are in inverted comas and the part about "The second law of thermodynamics" is not , so i take it that its from the "Science News Editor" of Softpedia and not from the scientists . I think that the study itself sounds very interesting .

Well the second law of thermodynamics is a LAW. A very interesting one IMO. It lays the connection between energy and order (information!).

?G = ?H - TS

I'll look for the article when I have some more spare time... I've just had a physics exam last thursday. Now studying biodiversity of animals, physics will have to wait till after the exams :wink:
 
"Well the second law of thermodynamics is a LAW. A very interesting one IMO"

Thats what i was saying . I think that if someone in the article , wich is a full copy of all of the article on softpedia , doesnt understand the laws of thermodynamics its the "Science Editor" and not those scientists . I dont know anything at all about physics or those laws .

Meduzz it would be cool if you could look at the original study by those scientists and give us an opinion .

Here are a few thoughts , if anyone can explain to me i would be gratefull .

"Entropy increasing really just means that energy tends to distribute evenly in a closed system"

Entropy = dilution ? If what you said is true why do we have planets and why isnt the energy in "the" universe expanding evenly ? (I dont mean that "If what you said is true" to doubt you personaly) I also dont think that the entropy that is happening in "the" universe can nesecerely be limited to this closed system .....if it is one . Considering one interpretation of the string theory where everything is suposed to be happening in 9 dimensions in and endless tenth dimension can we safely say that our universe is closed and wont at some point cease to exist as a universe and disipate into the tenth dimension ? Energy can not be created only changed is what i learned . So as an example a candle flame is a reaction limited by physical laws , when it goes out it doesnt exist as a flame anymore it disipates as energy into the world around us . The reaction happening in the flame representing the entropy in our universe , the limits of the flame representing the "limits" of our universe and the rest of the world representing the tenth dimension .

"everything is normal and natural" - " by pointing out how much of a short in the dark, most widely accepted theories about the birth of the universe actually are. ("Science is good for making tools for grown up children)."

I think that uncle saint Terry was very cool , and that theorys are theorys , and that a lot (all ?) of modern science started as esoteric and a lot of what is considered esoteric today is science waiting to be proved .

"to my mind, we cannot have a clue about how this (the big bang, before the big bang etc) happened,"

We didnt have a clue about the science that is behind what is/was behind science untill we "proved" some of it . = Just because something is theory now doesnt nesecerely mean it wont be proved later . Just like the idea that the speed of light is the fastest speed . That sounds to me like your avitar speculating that the screen refreshrate is the fastest speed to me . Personaly i think the speed of light is something similar to the frame rate in a film .

As far as i`m concerned fractals might only represent the limits of the mathematical acuracy of the building block size we use to describe a mathamatical formula . (Sorry for the very bad explanation , i mean maybe its only showing us the limits of our maths?) . And maybe "the" universe could be interpreted as our universe or the theoretical tenth dimension ?

"things that supposedly happened before an event that supposedly happened before we all supposedly spawned into existence for no apparent (supposedly) reason at all."

But that aplys to the "miracle" of our known universe just as much as to before it to doesnt it ? I mean the big bang happened in /is our universe and we cant explain it exept in theory . Or as "God" , a wonder , a "miracle" , "magic" , esoteric ?

After taking DMT i know i cant be sure of what "fact" is . I was taught that only objective , undenyable fact is that the "I"

exists , and that everything else is subjective speculation .
 
GOD a dit:
Entropy = dilution ? If what you said is true why do we have planets and why isnt the energy in "the" universe expanding evenly ?

Well actually that is what the cosmic background radiation is, the average distribution of energy in the universe. There are also other cosmic forces at work besides the 2nd law of thermodynamics such as gravity.. the weak and strong nuclear forces.. electromagnetic forces that bond atoms into elements and solids, liquids, gasses. These forces cause matter to bond, accrete, accumulate into galaxies, stars, proto solar systems and eventually planets. And the larger the universe gets, the cooler it gets, the energy gets more spreads out. At one time it was so hot that there were not even atoms.

GOD a dit:
Energy can not be created only changed is what i learned . So as an example a candle flame is a reaction limited by physical laws , when it goes out it doesnt exist as a flame anymore it disipates as energy into the world around us .

A perfect example. A candle flame==entropy in action. Energy in the bonds of the molecules is given off as heat and light during the chemical reaction (as in, reaction with oxgyen, a.k.a. the flame), until the energy is used up.

And yeah, to be fair, we can't say for sure the universe is a "closed system." This really is only a model for understanding certain processes and tendencies. My point really was that entropy does not equal chaos, in many ways it is the exact opposite, it is the tendency for energy to balance out.

GOD a dit:
"everything is normal and natural" - " by pointing out how much of a short in the dark, most widely accepted theories about the birth of the universe actually are. ("Science is good for making tools for grown up children)."

The whole point of the scientific method is falsifiability, revision, learning, (although unfortunately of course human ego gets in the way sometimes). It is merely a useful model for learning about the observable and testable universe around us. A scientific theory doesn't mean "just a theory", a theory is a model, a tool which can predict the outcome of a specific set of events. A theory could provide a dead wrong explanation but still be useful in prediction.

Einstein's two theories of relativity (general and special) are just "theories" but they have had much predictive power, showing how light bends due to gravity, how time slows down as matter travels faster, energy given off in nuclear reactions, all this stuff has been incredibly useful in everything from global communications (when a satellite is 25000 miles up it takes 1/6 of a second for radio waves to reach it and come back down, limited by the speed of light) to nuclear energy (and unfortunately the a bomb)

But Einstein's theories were not right on everything. He had no understanding of quantum physics, theories that have been useful enough to allow us to build microchips and electronics. Much like Newton's laws of gravity only work in certain circumstances, and aren't applicable to objects in particle accelerators moving much closer to the speed of light.

GOD a dit:
I think that uncle saint Terry was very cool , and that theorys are theorys , and that a lot (all ?) of modern science started as esoteric and a lot of what is considered esoteric today is science waiting to be proved .

Also one of the biggest problems is that scientific journalism is usually just plain bad. They are taking equations and trying to explain them in layman's English, and in the process they just confuse the layman.

HeartCore a dit:
"to my mind, we cannot have a clue about how this (the big bang, before the big bang etc) happened,"

I think the really relevant issue here is that even if we do figure out what happened before the big bang, we are still limiting ourselves by thinking in terms of time, of which the big bang is merely a part.

We really have no idea how or where or whence this universe came from. That we may never be able to understand. There is no scientific discovery that could ever prove or disprove the existence of a god or creator. The big bang like evolution is irrelevant to the question, because it merely deals with processes occurring in testable and observable shared "reality." It doesn't explain the ultimate "why this stuff is here in the first place".

Then again, neither does God, that merely breezes the question off by not asking how God came about in the first place.
 
I agree with most you said, st.bot.32, it seems intuitively right. (But what's intuition after studying philosophy for 7 years?)

st.bot.32 a dit:
There is no scientific discovery that could ever prove or disprove the existence of a god or creator.

That's because science is based on the assumption that everything can (at least in principle) be known. The unknowable retreats from every attempt to knowledge.
 
Forkbender a dit:
I agree with most you said, st.bot.32, it seems intuitively right. (But what's intuition after studying philosophy for 7 years?)

st.bot.32 a dit:
There is no scientific discovery that could ever prove or disprove the existence of a god or creator.

That's because science is based on the assumption that everything can (at least in principle) be known. The unknowable retreats from every attempt to knowledge.

Yeah, and it seems the more you attempt to learn, the less the world, the universe seems to jive with human intuition at all..
:lol:
 
time overrides space in closed and open loops.

peace
 
this is like trying to remember ourselves before we were born... :?

I think the title of the article is misleading.
 
some people claim to having done that ... by claiming they are the reincarnation of someone ....

i think many of these people are crazy though.... :P
 
Forkbender a dit:
I agree with most you said, st.bot.32, it seems intuitively right. (But what's intuition after studying philosophy for 7 years?)

st.bot.32 a dit:
There is no scientific discovery that could ever prove or disprove the existence of a god or creator.

That's because science is based on the assumption that everything can (at least in principle) be known. The unknowable retreats from every attempt to knowledge.
About your studying philosophy for 7 years, that already made me wonder why you let people get away with nonsense like
"terrence was a great philosopher, but a poor scientist"
Because after following only a couple philosophy classes there's at least one thing I DEFINITELY have learned, and that is that to be of any worth at all as a philosopher you have to be a good scientist. Taking the two apart leaves you with a person with interesting thoughts but not the means to support those thoughts with proper reasoning.
Ah well hope no one takes offense ^_^
 
I let people get away with almost anything :wink:

I would have thought the same after just a few lessons of philosophy, but philosophy is something else as well. I am trained to read philosophical texts, but that doesn't mean that I am a philosopher. For that you need something extra, call it imagination.

Science and philosophy were identical in ancient history, but got separated somewhere along the way (first sign: Aristotle, who was a philosopher and scientist, but separated the two). Needless to say, as a philosopher you need certain characteristics (that anybody can train, but few do), that are similar to the characteristics of a good scientist. However, you do not need to be a scientist to be a philosopher, cause a philosopher might just as well destroy every opinion in the world instead of coming up with a new theory and proving it.
 
physicists recently announced they may have discovered tachyons at one of theyre particle accelerators. they showed up in the detector microseconds before the collision indicating faster than light travel(tachyon means fast one). im sure they havnt created something that wasnt about at the big bang. if time didnt exist before the big bang where did the tachyons go?
 
Retour
Haut