 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> If we knew what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds, maybe we'd know where
> everything came from, but there's no reason I know of, outside genesis, to
> think there was nothing before there was something.
It just brings the (maybe a bit philosophical) question: How is it possible
that everything has always existed?
(Of course this question becomes very complicated even in the physics
sense, as the concept of time "before" the Big Bang becomes a bit complex.
It's impossible for us to tell what, if anything, was before the Big Bang,
including time itself. It's one of those impassable horizons in the universe.
If time didn't "exist" before the Big Bang, then exactly what is it that
happened?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It just brings the (maybe a bit philosophical) question: How is it possible
> that everything has always existed?
Why not? Is it possible everything will always exist from here on?
Scientifically, I can see a problem (i.e., there might be scientific
evidence suggesting there actually was a beginning to "everything"), but
philosophically?
> It's one of those impassable horizons in the universe.
Well, so far...
> If time didn't "exist" before the Big Bang, then exactly what is it that
> happened?)
That's why I'm wondering if time didn't run asymptotically slower, or
faster, or something. :-) It's certainly one way of resolving the
conundrum, even if it's not scientifically correct.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> It just brings the (maybe a bit philosophical) question: How is it possible
> that everything has always existed?
>
> (Of course this question becomes very complicated even in the physics
> sense, as the concept of time "before" the Big Bang becomes a bit complex.
> It's impossible for us to tell what, if anything, was before the Big Bang,
> including time itself. It's one of those impassable horizons in the universe.
> If time didn't "exist" before the Big Bang, then exactly what is it that
> happened?)
Hm, I like the idea someone brought up some posts ago:
Looking at the state of matter and the universe close to the Big Bang, isn't it
quite remniscient of a black hole?
Now near the singularity of a black hole, time slows down and approaches
standstill, from an outside observer's point of view.
So if we go back in time to the Big Bang, aren't we in a sense going back
*infinitely* long in time, making the question of what was *before* it a moot
one?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Hm, I like the idea someone brought up some posts ago:
/me raises hand.
Altho, thinking on it more, I'm pretty sure you're going the wrong way. If
time slows down near the black hole, and *you* are near the black hole,
everything else will seem to speed up. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Altho, thinking on it more, I'm pretty sure you're going the wrong way. If
> time slows down near the black hole, and *you* are near the black hole,
> everything else will seem to speed up. :-)
Yeah, but for "everything else" it will be like me slowing down, and nobody in
all the universe (or outside of it, for that matter) would be able to tell
which is the proper frame of reference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> (Of course this question becomes very complicated even in the physics
> sense, as the concept of time "before" the Big Bang becomes a bit complex.
> It's impossible for us to tell what, if anything, was before the Big Bang,
> including time itself. It's one of those impassable horizons in the universe.
> If time didn't "exist" before the Big Bang, then exactly what is it that
> happened?)
>
But don't we know that matter as we know it didn't exist. Isn't it the case that
we even know that matter as we know it wasn't even there at 10^-42 seconds?
Off-topic rant: notice how none of you said pow(10,-43)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> But don't we know that matter as we know it didn't exist. Isn't it the case that
> we even know that matter as we know it wasn't even there at 10^-42 seconds?
That's irrelevant. Matter is only a form of energy and can change form
(from and to other forms of energy).
The relevant question is whether all the *energy* existing in the current
universe has always existed, or whether it appeared from nothing by an
unknown phenomenon.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Altho, thinking on it more, I'm pretty sure you're going the wrong way. If
>> time slows down near the black hole, and *you* are near the black hole,
>> everything else will seem to speed up. :-)
>
> Yeah, but for "everything else"
Yep. But if you're talking about the Big Bang, there *is* no "everything
else". ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> But don't we know that matter as we know it didn't exist.
If by "matter" you mean atoms and stuff, yea, AFAIK, we're pretty sure. If
you mean "matter" how physicists talk about it, as in the thing that's
equivalent to energy and has inertial mass, I'm not so sure. I don't know
that anyone thinks there wasn't enough "energy" type stuff around to form
all the matter we see now.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> But don't we know that matter as we know it didn't exist. Isn't it the case that
> we even know that matter as we know it wasn't even there at 10^-42 seconds?
>
>
> Off-topic rant: notice how none of you said pow(10,-43)?
That would be off-topic you know :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
