Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

The beginning of the universe

janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?

There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:54:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?


There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.

This is just a big cop out. Even Atheist scientist are making hypothesis for a cause to the big bang, the events of the cause occurring outside this space-time. Such as universes bubbling into existence, or 2 branes in hyper dimensional space colliding.

It is a relevant question to ask what happened before. And if you don't want to accept anything other than this space-time the question can still be asked what caused the big bang or even what happened in the beginning of the universe.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:56:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?


There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.

I was responding to the poster who claimed there was "something" before the Big Bang. I was wondering what he thought that something was.

Also, what do you think of my idea in the original post, if you don't mind?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?

We cant tell, because of a period called the Planck time, where our laws of physics seems to break down. Everything beyond that is speculation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:02:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

If the big bang is time=0 there are still many things that happened after 0. The Cosmic background radiation is ancient energy from an epoch 380,000 years after the big bang. Past this we can't see anything.

There is an epoch when electrons and photons coupled to form hydrogen atoms, and even before this a time when energy made quarks. but there was a transition from pure energy to what we might recognize as particles and matter.

The term for nothing is misleading. most theories do not have the universe coming from nothing. And even in theology this is a turn of the century interpretation. There are theories of there being no space or time and that the space was created by a collision of branes.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:15:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:56:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?


There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.

I was responding to the poster who claimed there was "something" before the Big Bang. I was wondering what he thought that something was.

Also, what do you think of my idea in the original post, if you don't mind?

My apologies then. I thought you had a fundamental misunderstanding of Space-Time. It's hard to enter an earnest discussion if someone can't educate themselves about the simply matters concerning the subject.

Now; to your original post:

It is difficult to discern the properties of the initial singularity. It seems that we need a unifying theory of gravity in order to really say anything about it. Unfortunately we have everything but gravity in our current models. Once we figure out a unifying theory for gravity things will become much more clear. The higgs boson also only gives mass to some particles. The higgs field also doesn't account for 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside the baryons. Likely we'd have to have had some quarks and gluons in the initial singularity as well.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:46:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:15:03 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:56:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?


There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.

I was responding to the poster who claimed there was "something" before the Big Bang. I was wondering what he thought that something was.

Also, what do you think of my idea in the original post, if you don't mind?

My apologies then. I thought you had a fundamental misunderstanding of Space-Time. It's hard to enter an earnest discussion if someone can't educate themselves about the simply matters concerning the subject.

Now; to your original post:

It is difficult to discern the properties of the initial singularity. It seems that we need a unifying theory of gravity in order to really say anything about it. Unfortunately we have everything but gravity in our current models. Once we figure out a unifying theory for gravity things will become much more clear. The higgs boson also only gives mass to some particles. The higgs field also doesn't account for 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside the baryons. Likely we'd have to have had some quarks and gluons in the initial singularity as well.

I am currently educating myself on the subject. I have to start somewhere, right?
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:56:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:46:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:15:03 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:56:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?


There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.

I was responding to the poster who claimed there was "something" before the Big Bang. I was wondering what he thought that something was.

Also, what do you think of my idea in the original post, if you don't mind?

My apologies then. I thought you had a fundamental misunderstanding of Space-Time. It's hard to enter an earnest discussion if someone can't educate themselves about the simply matters concerning the subject.

Now; to your original post:

It is difficult to discern the properties of the initial singularity. It seems that we need a unifying theory of gravity in order to really say anything about it. Unfortunately we have everything but gravity in our current models. Once we figure out a unifying theory for gravity things will become much more clear. The higgs boson also only gives mass to some particles. The higgs field also doesn't account for 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside the baryons. Likely we'd have to have had some quarks and gluons in the initial singularity as well.

I am currently educating myself on the subject. I have to start somewhere, right?

Of course. May I suggest reading/watching some Lawrence Krauss. I know he's a bit of a taboo person due to his overt stance on religion, but he is great at breaking down the actual physics into laymen's terms. Just ignore his religious banter if you don't agree with it. Don't watch his debates, rather look for his lectures. Neil D. Tyson is another great speaker and helps break down the physics very well. Brian Greene is also pretty good. It's good to start with Atomic physics and then moving into quantum physics. Things get strange in quantum physics.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:05:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:56:26 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:46:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:15:03 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:56:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:48:40 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:44:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:35:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:03:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:06:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:20:27 PM, janesix wrote:
I am just playing with an idea here.

What if the beginning of the universe was only the beginning of matter in the universe. What if all the energy, fields, and laws of physics were already there. Maybe energy reached a critical point, allowing the Higgs field to come into play, resulting in the formation of mass and matter.

This is what is already hypothesized to happen. Somewhere like 10^32 seconds after the Big Bang began.

See some argue that the beginning of the universe is not usable data for an argument, because they reject any notion of a casual agent outside this space-time. But EVEN the early universe is usable data for a finely tuned universe.

I thought the going theory was that "everything" came from "nothing" in the big bang

No, that is an extermely over-simplified, and therefore specifically wrong concept of the Big bang.

What was there that existed before the Big Bang?


There was no "Before" the Big Bang. Time cannot exist without space and thus the question makes no sense. There was no space at the time of the big bang and so there was no time at or before the Big Bang. So the question "what was before....?" doesn't apply.

I was responding to the poster who claimed there was "something" before the Big Bang. I was wondering what he thought that something was.

Also, what do you think of my idea in the original post, if you don't mind?

My apologies then. I thought you had a fundamental misunderstanding of Space-Time. It's hard to enter an earnest discussion if someone can't educate themselves about the simply matters concerning the subject.

Now; to your original post:

It is difficult to discern the properties of the initial singularity. It seems that we need a unifying theory of gravity in order to really say anything about it. Unfortunately we have everything but gravity in our current models. Once we figure out a unifying theory for gravity things will become much more clear. The higgs boson also only gives mass to some particles. The higgs field also doesn't account for 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside the baryons. Likely we'd have to have had some quarks and gluons in the initial singularity as well.

I am currently educating myself on the subject. I have to start somewhere, right?


Of course. May I suggest reading/watching some Lawrence Krauss. I know he's a bit of a taboo person due to his overt stance on religion, but he is great at breaking down the actual physics into laymen's terms. Just ignore his religious banter if you don't agree with it. Don't watch his debates, rather look for his lectures. Neil D. Tyson is another great speaker and helps break down the physics very well. Brian Greene is also pretty good. It's good to start with Atomic physics and then moving into quantum physics. Things get strange in quantum physics.

I've watched a few Lawrence Krauss videos on youtube, I like him. Thanks.