What Was There Before the Big Bang?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

will the Universe continue to expand -- forever``?

``21-Dec-1998
Antarctic Evidence On Universe Expanding Forever:

`` Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, using a National Science Foundation (NSF) microwave telescope in Antarctica, have made a crucial measurement of cosmic background radiation that may help science to settle a fundamental question of whether the universe will EXPAND forever or COLLAPSE BACK UPON ITSELF. ``


20-Aug-1998
New Galaxy Cluster Hints Universe Will Expand Forever:

`` In the traditional view of the universe, space holds just enough matter to be on the cusp of EXPANDING forever or COLLAPSING under its own weight into a REVERSE BIG BANG. If this theory is true, then finding such a massive cluster so early in time is extremely unlikely, Donahue said. ``

( taken from University Science news http://unisci.com/stories/0820981.htm )



Now let us read what was written in the noble Quran

Big Bang theory:

{ Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? } [Al-Qur`an 21:30]...................:-)

will the Universe continue to expand -- forever``?

the Holy Quran says again yes:

``Expanding universe:

{ And it is We who have built the universe with our power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it. } [Quran 51:47].....................:-)

EId Mubarak my unbliever friends.....:-)

Good post mr Gill.

Ur efforts to steer the sheep away from the usual political dribble havent gone unnoticed.

Cosmology is a field of science in which some of the crucial concepts still cause some consternation to some renowned cosmologists. Robert Dicke, for instance, was a cosmologist of good standing. Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer have included his interview in their book ``Origins``. One of the questions that was asked Dicke in the interview was: How comfortable do you feel with taking the big bang model and extrapolating it backwards to the first few minutes or to the first second? Dicke responded as follows:

A little uncomfortable, I must confess. It`s a tremendous extrapolation. But not as uncomfortable as I feel about extrapolating the model beyond that. There`s still one point in cosmology that I find very disagreeable, and that`s the idea of time and space having no meaning up to a certain point and then suddenly appearing. A universe that is suddenly switched on I find highly disagreeable. I guess what bothers me is a sudden barrier, a discontinuity, whether it`s in time or space - because I`m used to continuity. To have space exist on one side of a sheet and not exist on the other I would find most disagreeable.

In the biographical profile of Robert Dicke, Lightman and Brawer noted, ``Bob Dicke is one of a small fraction of physicists who are outstanding in both theoretical and experimental work.`` So there is still a great deal to learn and discover about the fundamental aspects of the big bang theory.

Mohammad Gill

Inquirer: Good luck trying to explain to desi`s that time isnt real...

Before we start talking about the billion and one THEORIES out there, we should recognise the limitations which are placed on the mind if one chooses to use the scientific method (which is just one of hundreds of methods for understanding reality).

No matter how far this discussion goes, the following will always be true.

1. To KNOW (from a scientific standpoint especially) requires context. FACTS must b insync with previously discovered facts.

2. We are dealing with the macro of all macros and therefore have NO CONTEXT to even begin a decent investigation. We can try and figure it out from a micro level (as per string theory) but the resolution will be limited as we ONLY have ONE universe.

3. This is akin to understanding the properties of a balloon, while being IN a balloon and not ever knowing anything similar to a balloon.

4. It is ILLOGICAL too apply the laws of the physical world to understand a world which MAY NOT B bound by the physical world. This is key ladies and gentlemen. Our extrapolations will ALWAYS have an asterisk after them...

5. This discussion is like saying would white exist if everything was white... We cannot talk about what a NO-THING is if weve always Had THINGS to use as a frame of reference. Even what some of us erroneaously consider as a no-thing - ``empty`` SPACE is composed of billions of things, particles and of course dark matter...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

On the question of inflationary universe, it is important to keep in mind that the rate of inflation that the universe has not followed a linear path: rather, as was determined in 1998 and in subsequent studies, the universe had decelerated in the early stages after the Big Bang, and then started accelerating which it is doing to this day. This behavior seems best explained by our old friend, the string theory. What is more, this behavior ties the incredibly tiny strings to the incredibly huge universe into one common conceptual construct.

More specifically, this ``dhhakka start`` (deceleration-acceleration) of inflation at cosmological scales is a result of the nature of the graviton which exists at the micro-scales of sub-sub-sub atomic world of the strings. The graviton, responsible for the gravitational field, has the property of being able to traverse the 11 dimensions predicted by the string theory and its properties are considered to explain this observed phenomenon quite well. Indeed, these properties can be tested through increasingly powerful instruments, and these tests include increasingly precise measurements of the orbit of our ``everyday`` heavenly body, namely the moon. It is expected that before this decade is over we should have a much better understanding on the causes of this deceleration-acceleration of the inflation of the universe, and of how the strings tie everything together.

As little as I understand, mohar11 is correct in stating that Einstein’s theory of relativity contains the three possibilities for the universe, namely, 1. It expands for ever if its mass density is less than the critical mass density. The ratio of the mass density and the critical mass density is denoted by omega. The universe expands if omega is less than 1.

2. It contracts if omega is greater than 1.

3. It remains static if it is equal to 1. One of the first solutions was given by Willem de Sitter for the empty universe, i.e., for omega equal to zero.

The oscillating universe that is a sequence of big bangs and big crunches was predicted by Friedmann from Einstein`s theory of relativity.

Einstein had introduced the cosmological constant to counterbalance the antigravity repulsive force to keep the universe static. He was very well aware of the consequence of the expanding universe. At t (time) = 0, the universe will have to come into being. And anything that starts to exist arguably needs a cause for doing so. And who could be better cause than God.

Now God has no role, as far as we know, in science. When you introduce God or any divine intervention in science, it does not remain science; it becomes metaphysics as I had mentioned in my earlier paper (Is Science without Religion Really Lame?). Einstein and other great scientists did not want to infect science with metaphysics. After Hubble’s convincing evidence in favor of an expanding universe, Einstein did not have any recourse but to accept it. However he qualified his belief in God with a caveat that he did not believe in a personal God, i.e. the God of rewards and retributions.

However quantum mechanics has introduced new uncertainty in the cause – effect syllogism, and the early universe is governed by quantum mechanics. In the micro-world of quantum mechanics (the early universe started from a subatomic particle), there is no cause for events to occur; they just happen. Their probability can be computed with an amazing accuracy but it cannot be said with absolute certainty that a particular electron will go left or right after colliding with another particle. Also the matter loses its continuity; it’s just foam, quantum foam. There is no directional time hence no ‘before’ and ‘after’. We probably cannot say that the universe began at a certain moment because time did not exist the way we know it.

Our present knowledge about our universe is far too scant. Most of the matter in the universe is in the form of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’; we do not know where it is. On the theory side, until we develop a unified theory which holds good for the whole lifetime of the universe, our predictions are tentative. Again our mathematical theories are elegant but it is difficult to verify their predictions empirically.

In spite of all this, we are living in exciting times in which human analytical skills and innovative technological capabilities are making it possible to hope that better understanding will be achieved one day, sooner or later, respecting the origin of our universe.

Mohammad Gill

nasha

I think ``expand for ever`` is one of the three possibilities as derived from Friedman theory.... the other two being - 1. Expand and collapse 2.exapnd and hold.

The jury is still out on this. It all comes down to a problem of weight :)... the weight of universe, that is :). More correctly - the mass of the universe. If the mass of the universe is less than a critical value, then the gravitational force will be smaller than required to slow down the expansion and hence the universe will expand forever. But if the mass is more than that crictical value then grvitational pull will slow down the expansion and eventually will stop it ... then it will start contracting. If the mass is just eqal to that critical value then the universe will expand to a finite size and then stop and will stay there.

Now the problem is to calculate the mass ... with uncertainty principle playing truant ..... invisibel mass such as blackholes out there .... and apparently, there are other kind of mass that we don`t know about. Then there is also theories about mass being created while the universe expands.

So I think the ``expand and collapse`` is the favored theory at this point.

``After its current phase of expansion is complete - the universe will start shrinking``(Mohar)

Mohar that was old stuff -- the new stuff -- Universe is expanding and expanding and will expamd for ever...the distance between the glaxies will continue to increase....no chance of shrinking back because of repelling or `repulsive gravity` -- a definitely repulsive idea....:-)

unless we find out that the same Universe is shrinking -- at the same time -- in some other Dimension....:-)

The question ``What was there before big bang?`` is NOT meaningless even though Big Bang theory provides no explanation for it. That`s becuase Big Bang theory is an incomplete postulation. The whole universe was NOT created out of thin air.

Hence - the Big Bang theory has been super-imposed by another theory - that the universe expands and collapses alternatively. Big bang is just one leg of this eternal journey. After its current phase of expansion is complete - the universe will start shrinking .... every thing will happen in reverse .... the rules of universe will be diametrically opposite. The whole universe will collapse into a single point from where it will have another big bang and start expanding again.

So those who are seeking Origin of Time or Anything else ....well ... there is no such thing. There is no beginning and there is no end. The universe is eternal. So is time - which is moving forward or backward depending on whether the universe is expanding and collapsing.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

a great summery of current cosmological thought -- precise and eloquent -- Gill saab!

most of the problems may be due to the unidirectional forward-going `arrow of time` --

`before` the BIG BANG of the `BIG ATOM` - there was TIME -- but it was reversed TIME -- this is how the Big Atom came to be so dense -- so dense that it couldn`t be anymore denser -- and exploded -- into Big Bang

my prejudice -- time travels in both directions -- forward and backward -- the day a baby is born and starts to grow -- it is getting that much closer to death -- if time moves in only one direction -- we would have only a macro world -- no micro world -- the micro world is the product of `time reversal --

the WHEEL of Time moves Forward and also -- Backward -- from Molecules to Men -- from Men to Molecules .............silly......:-)

.....o God........the MORON has not only bankrupted us Morally............he is about to bankrupt us Financially......a miscalculation 530 billion dollars?.....pleeeze get rid of him in November.....we can`t AFFORD this Miscalculatin Mongoloid.....o Lord ....get rid of him........pretty pleeze