What Was Before The Big Bang?

[lenin32]

When the big bang took place, I understand that all of matter and space was thrown out of a singularity. But since space was thrown out, what the hell was there before the event?

It obviously couldnt have been thrown out into an empty space, because it was space itself which was thrown out. So WTF??!!!

[scameter]

Nothing. Or something. B)

[lenin32]

It cant be something or nothing. Can it? Was it like static in a television set or something. What are the theories

[...]

..according to Hawking, since laws of physics did not apply prior to the bigbang, nothing conclusive or theoretical can be said about the universe before the BB...

[Thomas Knierim]

lenin: what the hell was there before the event?

According to the standard BB theory, space and time were itself created at the moment of the Big Bang, hence, there is no temporal relation to whatever caused it, hence the word "before" does not apply, hence the question does not make sense, hence you get an F in physics. :P :lol:

But it's always good to be curious.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thus, there was nothing before it. :) Another question science can't explain, and one derived from their own theories. Math must not be too invincible.

[scameter]

That isn't the current concrete theory. It's just a theory that this current existence came from a big bang. It could very well be that there was an existence before this one that "crunched" in on it's self into the singularity of our big bang.

[sonrisa]

Thomas, according to Turok, Steinhart, & Olvert time existed before the BB.

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa, I've never heard of these three people and I cannot find anything about them on the Net. Do you have any references?

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

that's becuz I misspelled their names. Sorry but I never said I could spell. :blink:

I saw the theory one nite on the Science Channel so I hadn't seen their names in print- until now.

I did some googling & came up with this article from Discover mag
(click here) (http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/)

what surprises me is that I can't seem to recall reading this in hard copy. I generally sit down I read Discover as soon as I find it in my mailbox. :unsure:

[Thomas Knierim]

The scenario described in this article is brane cosmology, which is one of the speculative offshoots of string theory, or respectively Witten's M-theory. It seems to me the spatiotemporal relations of universes in the brane are outside our normal 3D+time framework, therefore the word "before" is still problematic.

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

If indeed time is generated within this universe and from this universe/existence, and if indeed this existence entirely did not exist in any form before the BB, I don't see how time could have existed then.

[scameter]

It doesn't have to be always. As I said, if time is created by this existence, then it came about when this existence came about, in the form it's in now anyways. I find it amazing that all of math and all the rules of physics cease to function at the BB. Our existence came out of something entirely opposite to it's self. :)

[______]

But what produces time? Movement (i.e. the rotation of planets; planets orbiting a star)? Does time exist for those in open space in no orbit? These are questions I have pondered for a long time.

[Oli]

Who's to say that there definately was a big bang? That's only a theory. Theres another theory that says space and time have simply just always existed and there was no starting point. This theory is possibly less likely to be true, and not as widely accepted; but still a theory the same as the big bang theory.

[Michael]

What came after the Big Bang is just as problematical and the amount of people who have THE ANSWER to these issues is just as vexing.

[sonrisa]

Oli-- Theres another theory that says space and time have simply just always existed and that there was no starting point

-- yeah, that's Kant's theory, if I remember my high school physics correcty.

What I find interesting about the SOT (Steinhart, Ovrut, & Turok) theory is that it sort of harkens back to Kant. Kant never talked about branes, or superstrings, or extra dimensions, but he did say that time & space, & the universe are infinite, which is basically what SOT sez.

[scameter]

It is just a theory. But if we assume that's all it is, there is no need to discuss it as if it is more than just a theory. :)

[______]

Originally posted by @--
Oli-- Theres another theory that says space and time have simply just always existed and that there was no starting point

-- yeah, that's Kant's theory, if I remember my high school physics correcty.

:D This is parrallel to the Buddhist way of thinking as well! :D

[MidnightSun]

What was before big bang? The answer is everything.

[cooxman]

Time is still a very mysterious, multifaceted concept.We quote the time, by referencing our time-piece. We measure time by referencing our time-piece. We live in time, a time that was socio-cultrally constructed for the benifit of recording and keeping tract of the passage of events or lack thereof. "Time" serves no purpose without a time-keeper. Things happen as a result of changing conditions. For changing conditions to occur there must be something happening.Time at most a concept, its infinite, there's no beginning or end to time by definition, and it's what we use to measure and reference something happening or not happening. If nothing happened before the big bang, then how long was nothing happening for? however long nothing was happening is the phenomena we would assign a measure of time toward, to undersand the passage or lack therof of events or the changing or lack thereof conditions of existence or non-existence.And as a final to the topic question, Pre-big bang conditioning or events or non-events,...... its pretty much left up to the imagination, after all, wasnt much of science built upon similar imaginative energies.Perhaps a grand unification theory might shed some light on the topic, since the laws that are defined by such a theory , pretty much predominated this period of existance.

[sonrisa]

& all around him there are an infinite number if other Brahmas, each dreaming their own universes

:)

[scameter]

Why wasn't everything created by the BB, and nothing was before it? What if nothing crunched it's self, and from it's immense pressure came the BB?

[scameter]

It wouldn't. It would become compressed, and then explode, or perhaps implode.

[schrodinger]

The universe is an inchworm. At the moment, it is stretching itself out towards its farthest reach. The, it will bunch itself up again, in preparation for another stretch. There is no reason to believe the present stretch is the first, or the last. This process can continue forever, or until that morning bird decides to make a meal of it!

:mellow:

[abaris]

There never was a Big Bang. The Universe is infinite and eternal it did always exist, and it always will exist. Only halfwits like Einstein, Penrose or Hawking claim otherwise.

[MidnightSun]

The universe is an inchworm. At the moment, it is stretching itself out towards its farthest reach. The, it will bunch itself up again, in preparation for another stretch. There is no reason to believe the present stretch is the first, or the last. This process can continue forever, or until that morning bird decides to make a meal of it!

Reincarnation of universe, thanks for the very intresting idea of the worm :)

There never was a Big Bang. The Universe is infinite and eternal it did always exist, and it always will exist

That may be so.

[scameter]

:D Halfwits?

[abaris]

what about pico-wit? <_<

No, seriously. Don't mistake the consumption of knowledge with scientific education. I remember my time in university. We were fed some mathematical formulas and then asked to apply them. No one deemed it necessary to question the accuracy of what we were taught. A physics class is a lot like a Bible class. You read the scripture and accept its accuracy by the authority of the authors.

As soon as you look into the details you will be amazed how inaccurate it actually is. Let's take the current understanding for gravity for example. How good does general relativity describe gravitation?

Lets compare relativistic predictions with astronomic observations:

1. Short Range: GR fails to predict the observed mass limit for stars of about 120 solar masses.

2. Mid Range: GR does successfully describe the perihelion of mercury and planetary orbits. It is however not exact. Measurements of the velocity and distance of the Pioneer spacecraft and other deep space probes indicate that they experience a sun ward acceleration which is slightly above the prediction.

3. Long Range: GR does not account for the observed rotation of galaxies. It is of by almost one order of magnitude.

4. Very Long Range: GR does not account for the Large scale structures observed in the universe or the recession rate of very distant objects.

In other words relativity scores one point (a bit less then that) out of four in this test. A score of 24% percent means it gets a square F and fails miserably. So how can one trust any prediction based on current cosmology?

The Big Bang is after all the explosion of a giant primordial black hole. But black holes result from a solution to Einsteins field equations known as the Schwarzschild Metric.
The radius of the event horizon, also known as the Schwarzschild Radius, is the distance from the singularity at which the escape velocity equals the speed of light.

Schwarzschild's calculation is obviously flawed:

The expression for the schwarzschild radius is equivalent with Newtons equation for the the Free Fall velocity, Not the relativistic free fall velocity. This is surely odd since in classical Newtonian mechanics the inertial mass is independent from the velocity of the falling body.

The main problem though is, that relativity states that nothing can move faster then light, It is therefore impossible for the Free Fall velocity to ever reach c, it rather approaches c asymptotically. But since there is no point at which it is c the Schwarzschild radius becomes meaningless. Therefore:

No Black Holes.
No Big Bang.

[sonrisa]

ok so then Abaris, what do you think is sitting at the center of our galaxy?

[scameter]

I never said they weren't halfwits. I only meant that such a statement is rare. For all I know they could be idiots. Further, for really all I know, they could not even exist/have existed.

[______]

ok so then Abaris, what do you think is sitting at the center of our galaxy?

<_< Good question.

If Abaris is correct, and there are no such things as black holes....

What makes our galaxy rotate?

I'm no scientist by any means, but the only option I can think of would be some sort of extremly large star and the matter that is our galaxy orbits it? Please prove this wrong if you can.

[MidnightSun]

If that kind of star would exist it would be huge, i mean really huge, so big that we could see it form here even.

[______]

Or possibly a collection of stars?

Or maybe that star only has a stronger gravitational pull...
True it would be huge, but maybe not quite large enough for all to see.

:D Shows how much I know about physics! I find this quest for knowledge very stimulating! :lol:

[abaris]

The very rotation of the Galaxy proves that there is no black hole in the center. The orbital velocity of stars near the galactic center is far too slow while the velocity of stars at the periphery is far too fast as to indicate that a super massive body is sitting at the center of the Galaxy. The values differ from theory by almost one order of magnitude.

Another issue is the bulge you see around the center of spiral galaxies like our own. If you look at the Galaxy from the side, you see that there is a spherical lump of stars centered around the axis of rotation.

Now let's take a star which is located close to the axis far above the galactic plane of symmetry. What force keeps such a star at this position? It barely has any orbital velocity around the center, so if our current understanding of gravity was correct, that star should plunge right in to the massive body in the galactic center. Stars which are in the bulge but further from the axis should spiral into that massive galactic center according to their orbital velocity, which increases with the distance from the axis.

There is nothing in the theory, to maintain stars around the galactic center at positions significantly above or below the galactic plane of symmetry. In other words, spiral galaxies would be flat. No bulge.

The above issues demonstrate clearly that our understanding of gravity is flawed. And that's true for classical theory (Newton), as it is for GR (Einstein).

In my previous post I mentioned the Schwarzschild radius which is allegedly the radius of the event horizon of a black hole. As I mentioned, the escape velocity Schwarzschild calculates at the event horizon is exactly c and therefore higher then the free-fall velocity to that same radius. The problem here is that this asymmetry between escape and free fall velocity makes the gravitational field of a black hole non-conservative. It means that the kinetic energy it takes to escape from any radius above the event horizon is larger then the kinetic energy gained by falling to the same radius.

As a result, every non circular orbit around a black hole means a net loss of energy. Any body orbiting a black hole would therefore plunge into the black hole regardless from its distance from the singularity at the center of the hole. If this was the case, we wouldn't see any galaxies. They would all have collapsed to super massive black holes long time ago.

A body on a perfectly circular orbit on the other hand would be absolutely stable, even if it were right above the event horizon. Absolutely Perfect orbits do of cause not exist in nature. So let's look at a hypothetical starship on a nearly circular orbit right above the event horizon of a super massive black hole. What is the orbital velocity of the ship? Well it is 0.707c (escape-velocity/sqrt2) and thereby comfortably below the absolute speed limit c. A short burst from the reverse thrusters would let the ship slowly spiral into a lower but still subluminal orbit within the event horizon. A burst from the thrusters would again lift the ship out to an orbit above the event horizon. Remember! The ship remains subluminal at all times. There is nothing that could prevent the ship to escape from within the event horizon as long as it remains above the radius at which the Circular Orbit velocity is c.
So why did Schwarzschild use the escape instead of the circular orbit velocity when he calculated the radius of the event horizon?

The answer is simple. If he had contracted the event horizon to the truly inescapable radius at which the circular orbit velocity is c, he would have to allow superluminal free fall velocities (~1.4c) in an area which lies outside the event horizon and is thereby observable. The Schwarzschild radius is nothing but a smokescreen. It hides the naked singularity from the rest of the universe because singularities can not exist in physics (see quantum mechanics). It is expanded beyond the logical value, so that it also surrounds areas with superluminal freefall velocities. The issue of the circular orbit velocity is ignored. The Schwarzschild metric is not just bad science. It is fraud.

Hawking takes the black hole charade even a step further. It is interesting to know that the decay of a black hole by emission of Hawking Radiation is a direct result of the conservation laws. What Hawking does, is ludicrous. He deals with theoretical objects that violate the laws of conservation and at the same time he arrives at conclusions by applying those very same laws. In my opinion he surely deserves to be called a Halfwit.

But let's get back to the actual question: What's at the center of the galaxy?
The answer is simple once we heed the signs and accept the fact that Gravity is a repulsive force.

The center of the galaxy must therefore contain a turbulent area of hot gas which is driven there by the energy pressure resulting from the surrounding stars. The galaxy itself is held together by pressure from surrounding space.

That's right! The universe doesn't suck and blow at the same time. It just blows. Mother Earth doesn't pull us close to her breast. She desperately tries to push us away. Unfortunately for her, the Lords of Heaven are not fond of us either, so they push back and prevail.

Scientifically speaking: Energy tries to dissipate. High density areas expand outwards and produce thereby a repulsive force. Attractive forces do exist only as the differential between two repulsive forces. Air pressure is always positive there is no such thing like negative pressure. No suction force. Your vacuum cleaner does still suck though because the positive pressure in the back is lower then the positive pressure outside of it.

Repulsive Gravity can account for all astronomic observations without the need to employ arbitrary scaling functions. It explains:

1. Maximum star mass
2. Perihelion of Mercury
3. Pioneer Anomaly
4. Galaxy rotation
5. Star distribution in spiral galaxies
6. Large scale galaxy clusters
7. Hubble red shift

And it does so in a consistent way. But it works only if you accept the existence of the ether and an infinite universe. Unfortunately the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect the ether, and one has to demonstrate a flaw in the setup of the MMX in order to get the Idea of repulsive gravity established.

That's not all though. A unified ether theory knows only one type of force, which is caused by energy pressure differentials. It doesn't know electric, magnetic, weak or strong nuclear forces. Mathematically it is completely described by the Euler equation for an Ideal gas. What remains to be done is, to determine the compressibility factor of the gas and work out the Euler solutions which account for all other forces.

That does indeed mean that you have to completely rework Maxwell's electrodynamics. That is surely not trivial but doable. Remember Maxwell did also work on the Kinetic Gas theory which is the basis for Euler, and Maxwell's field equations are identical to Euler except for the magnetic force which is perpendicular to the electric flux.

After this is done one has to completely overhaul Quantum mechanics since it is based on Maxwell's electrodynamics. But that should round it up. Get this done and you developed the "Theory of Everything".

That was the way science was heading 140 years ago. Electrodynamics was going that way, and Kelvin's vortex model of subatomic particles pointed to that direction as well. The change of direction was caused by the non-zero result of the MMX. We won't get anywhere until we convincingly address the MMX issue.

Modern string theory is a dead end. It is a variation of Lord Kelvin's vortex theory. The strings are actually Kelvin's closed vortex loops. The fallacy of String theory is, that contrary to its statements it is not a unified theory of nature. It is rather the attempt to unify to distinct contradictory theories (Quantum mechanics, and Relativity). The assumption that both of those established theories are accurate, leads to String theories which try to accomodate contradictory predictions (QM and GR). That is the source for the multitude of dimensions in ST.

[______]

So in layman terms that means that garvity doesn't pull it pushes.

But I don't think I caught on to just what it at the center of our galaxy...

[MidnightSun]

The very rotation of the Galaxy proves that there is no black hole in the center

Is there a centre at all?

As a result, every non circular orbit around a black hole means a net loss of energy. Any body orbiting a black hole would therefore plunge into the black hole regardless from its distance from the singularity at the center of the hole. If this was the case, we wouldn't see any galaxies. They would all have collapsed to super massive black holes long time ago

It would take a lot of time for all the planets to get lost in black holes, during that time other planets could appear perhaps?

[abaris]

So in layman terms that means that gravity doesn't pull it pushes.


That's right. Gravity pushes it does not pull. Two gravitating bodies are pushed together by the energy density of space. Since there is more space around them then between them they are driven together.

The best way to picture this, is the membrane of a drum. If you hit the drum each point on the membrane oscillates. If you put fine sand on the membrane you will see the sand corns start moving and concentrating in some areas (the nodes of the oscillation). The large scale patterns in the universe are produced in the same way. Large scale energy density oscillations in space drive matter around and concentrate it in low potential areas. That's where galactic clusters appear.

Once now you get a certain amount of mass in a certain area, the energy density of that mass pushes against the external pressure and it becomes increasingly difficult to place more matter
into this area. There is therefore no massive body in the center of the galaxy. Due to the steep energy density gradient in the central region, gas from nearby stars is accelerated towards that center friction converts the kinetic energy of that gas to radiation (that's what we observe), the gas cools and dissipates.

Is there a centre at all?

In geometric terms yes. There is a central area but there is no central body in that area.


It would take a lot of time for all the planets to get lost in black holes, during that time other planets could appear perhaps?

Not possible. The non-conservative field would lead to exponential collapse. Once the black hole forms, it will suck up stars in the nearby central region. With each star it swallows it gets stronger. The galaxy would collapse very quick. There wouldn't be any material left to make new stars or planets.

[MidnightSun]

Not possible. The non-conservative field would lead to exponential collapse. Once the black hole forms, it will suck up stars in the nearby central region. With each star it swallows it gets stronger. The galaxy would collapse very quick. There wouldn't be any material left to make new stars or planets.

Oh well, i guess so, was worth to try :lol:

[abaris]

MidnightSun,

The question is justified! It is the main question in cosmology after all.
Gravitation (both models Newton and GR) should have all mass in the Universe clumped up to black holes. So why do we see Galaxies?

Newton answered this question by stating that the Universe Is Infinite, and that the combined gravitational effects of the Infinite universe creates a flat gravitational equilibrium. That proposal was rejected because it works only with a static motionless universe. Any motion induces instability which leads to collapse.

Einstein's initial model had the same problem. It was doomed to collapse. To counter that Einstein Introduced the cosmological constant (which is another form of repulsive gravity).

[______]

Saying that black holes did exist, just where would the other side of the hole open up to? Do we have any way of figuring that out?

[MidnightSun]

Dont think so.

[sonrisa]

where would the other side of a black hole lead to? a white hole of course! :) (click here) (http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html)

[abaris]

Singularities do not come in white or black. They don't exist at all. Just because mathematics allows negative square root solutions, doesn't mean that they do exist in nature.

There are no white holes since there are no black holes (for the reasons I've already mentioned) .;)

[sonrisa]

well, that link does say that white holes cannot exist in nature. So it would follow that black holes can't exist either.

but getting back to what you were saying about gravity, Abaris. That the Earth tries to push us away. I thought it was centrifugal force that keeps us on the planet.

if there are hot gasses at the center of galaxy like you say, could they ignite into a star?

[______]

I wonder if man could create the technology to create "black holes" to open up one of these "wormholes" and travel vast distances almost instantly. Kind of like "folding space". Now theoretically, this isn't moving at the speed of light, so now the whole theory of "nothing but light can move at such speeds" can't be used to disprove this.

And if there was no BB, then what's up with the universe "expanding" theory?

[abaris]

i don't really see how we can know the origin of the universe with what we know now

Well, i would say we can't because of all those things we think to know. As children, we run through the world with open eyes. Questioning everything.

The older we grow, the more information we accumulate. We start to look more and more into our "esoteric universe" and try to make sense of it instead of trying to make sense of the real world around us. We become unwilling to question any of the things we learned over years.
It seems to be true that:

Much learning does not teach understanding, otherwise it would have been taught

This loss of intellectual virginity affects individual people as it affects civilizations or even our kind as a whole. Maybe we should look back at a civilization at its infancy, when all things were new and exciting and people walked through the world with their eyes wide open.

Anaximander, who was one of the first Ionian philosophers, coined the term "Apeiron" or the boundless, that's what he calls the universe. He also introduced the Aether as the one primary substance which makes up everything. Only a few words from his writings remained but countless philosophers (Nietzsche among others) translated and pondered his words.

Anaximander considers the universe to be boundless, because other wise it would have to exist within something else. And what should this something else be?

Unlike the other Ionians he does not take water, earth, air or fire as the basic substance. He rightly recognizes that those are different manifestations of the same primary substance which he calls "Aether". In modern terms we would say that everything is energy: e=mc^2.

Heraclitus picks up Anaximanders ideas but he doesn't speak of Aether anymore, he calls it Fire. Which is fitting since he considers Strive to give rise to new things and on the downside destroy others but he still means the same primordial energy:

This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been is, and will be -- an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures

Notice that he speaks of measures. No fire burns for ever. Not even the Gods are above the laws of change:

Men live in the death of the Gods as the Gods live in the death of men.

The Gods are seen as part of the Universe and subjects to the Logos. What makes them different from men is their connection to this ultimate intention that moves the cosmos. Because men:

Although intimately connected with the Logos, keep setting themselves against it

This line of thought was not exclusive to or even originally developed by the Greeks
It came to them as it came to others from the depths of time. Nikola Tesla, once said:

There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance

I just find those principles intrigiung more so then bare mathematical abstractions. Once we understand existence we can attempt to express it in mathematics, although i doubt that once there, we would need or even want to do so. To seek understanding in mathematics seems futile to me.

[Michael]

I didn't hear anything, did you?

[MidnightSun]

I wonder if man could create the technology to create "black holes" to open up one of these "wormholes" and travel vast distances almost instantly. Kind of like "folding space". Now theoretically, this isn't moving at the speed of light, so now the whole theory of "nothing but light can move at such speeds" can't be used to disprove this.

I know many computer games with that kind of jump gates :D

[abaris]

you mean something like a warp-drive >click here< (http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html)
Another neat "Negative Root" solution to Einsteins field equations. To bad that negative energy does not exist.

[sonrisa]

those authors seem to think so.

cool article, or as Spock would say..

most fascinating

:D

[abaris]

Beam me up Scotty. No intelligent life on this planet B)

[MidnightSun]

you mean something like a warp-drive

Yes, some kind of jump gate. Then you take it u travel a huge distance hundreds of times faster than in an ordinary way, just flying towards it.

Intresting but in one game (Freelancer) there were jump holes who worked just as the gates but were natural, some kind of energy in the space which was rotating in various sides. Sounds like a black hole doesnt it?

[______]

Intresting but in one game (Freelancer) there were jump holes who worked just as the gates but were natural, some kind of energy in the space which was rotating in various sides. Sounds like a black hole doesnt it?
:lol: :lol: :D I just beat that game the other night!

I'm a huge gamer at heart! Truly the one attachment I will never let go of! :D :lol:

[Michael]

There is one scientific experiment that I have heard of in which I think electrons are used.

As I recall being told it goes something like this ( perhaps the more scientific of you out there will be able to clarify the details for the rest): you take twin electrons, ship one to the moon, change the polarity of the one on earth and the polarity of the one on the moon will change at the precise moment of change for the electronic on Earth.

Time and space appear to be wiped out in a quantum moment. That's what I heard. Could be wrong.

Is it the first step on the road to time travel? :think:

[abaris]

What you are referring to is a Quantum entanglement experiment. Entangled particle pairs seem to communicate their status instantenously.

Which is another reason why relativity as it stands is wrong.

[Michael]

Thanks for that abaris. Any chance of a layman's elucidation?

Particle -what kind?

Entangled?

Communication or change of status?

Seem?

How does this make relativity wrong?

How was the experiment set up or is it theoretical(being aware you said experiment)?

[Michael]

Thanks for that abaris. Any chance of a layman's elucidation?

Particle -what kind?

Entangled?

Communication or change of status?

Seem?

How does this make relativity wrong?

How was the experiment set up or is it theoretical(being aware you said experiment)?

And just when I was going to say that what came before the Big Bang was a large meal of beans

[abaris]

entanglement is really not completely understood. It is a prediction of Quantum mechanics.
In QM every particle (proton, electron, muon...) is described by a wave function.

This wave-function is responsible for the properties of the particle, spin, charge, mass. By entangling two particles we couple them so that they have the same spin. Now even if the particles are far apart, reversing the spin of the one cause the spin of the other to revert as well.
This happens instantaneously or at any rate much faster then the change could be communicated between the two particles by a electro magnetic signal traveling at c.

This makes relativity wrong because the change (change of spin on one particle) is communicated faster then c, which is the absolute speed limit for relativity. There are some other QM experiments with superluminal effects as well (FLT experiments). They are based on media with negative refraction indices. Usually some ionized gas in an exotic quantum state. Those experiments do indisputably produce situation where light is accelerated to 3c or where a light beam is brought to a standstill.

This is not compatible with relativity.

[abaris]

supplement:

Yes we are talking about real experiments which have been reproduced countless times.
This is not crack-pottery. It's real hardcore science.

Pr. Anton Zeilinger at the university of Vienna is one of the leading researchers in this field.
He even designed a Quantum Teleportation experiment (at the subatomic scale).

http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/p...photonentangle/ (http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/photonentangle/)

[Michael]

Thanks again.

Does anyone have any idea of where that leaves time/space.

Any potential for time travel there?

Perhaps the term 'time travel' is misleading. Perhaps the aim should be to travel out of time.

[amadman]

Hello! New here.

I had to post on this because it always bugged me.

I am ignorant to all of this but to me it seems that there had to be something to 'bang'.

The way i see it is that something bigger blew up to make what we live in now.

The universe it came from would still be there but at a diffent scale.

Both space and time would be different there.


The reason we would not see these other 'plantets/stars' is because the scale of space is different.

Our whole universe would just be a debre field of a blown up 'planet' in a diffent universe

with a larger scale. In a sense the other universe would be to big to see.

[abaris]

madman,

the thoughts you express are exactly what the self-similarity hypothesis proposes. An endless repetition of the same patterns on different scales. An infinite fractal universe. May sound crazy at first, but the comparison of distance scales between features from the sub-atomic up to the cosmological scale seems to point to this direction. Very intriguing!

[oboe2damax]

When I think about what existed before the BB, a Taoist description I read somewhere that has since helped this problem make sense to me. I believe I remember it being described as a "Pregnant Void".

Who's to say that there definately was a big bang? That's only a theory. Theres another theory that says space and time have simply just always existed and there was no starting point. This theory is possibly less likely to be true, and not as widely accepted; but still a theory the same as the big bang theory. - Oli
:nono:

As for dismissing the big bang theory due to it's status as a 'theory'....that's the same reasoning that is used to dismiss evolution. If I can't chime in on the nature of space time, I can at least help to clear up some misunderstanding about this word.

There are 2 ways to define Theory.

1. The everyday usage of this word is in contrast to a 'fact'. For example, one would either say "I know this for a fact." or "I have a theory about this, but I don't know for sure".

2. The second way 'theory' is defined is how it is used by the scientific community. There are no facts, or absolute truths in science. Theories are used to organize observations and generate research. They are evaluated by the scientific community and some better explain natural phenomena than others. A theory can never become a fact. Theory status is as far as it gets in science. Gravity is still a theory.

[abaris]

The Big-Bang theory has nothing to do with science. The idea of the universe having a beginning and an end, an Alpha and an Omega is rooted in the Judeo-Christian understanding of existence.

It even contradicts science. Contrary to your claim a hypothesis can solidify into an undeniable fact. The law of causality and the laws of conservation are undeniable scientific facts. They are self evident, lead to absolutely consistent mathematical models, and have not and can not be observed to fail.

To abandon those most logical and perfectly observable principles in favour of religious motivated science fiction is completely irrational.

The Big-Bang inquisitors do not even allow the question about the cause or source of the big bang. They have moved it into a metaphysical realm beyond the existence of space and time.
How can such an approach be confused with science?

[amadman]

abaris - Thanks for the info! :thumbsup: Looks like I have some reading to do. <_<

[abaris]

Your welcome. You may find the following site interesting:

http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html

[amadman]

Thanks again Abaris :thumbsup: You have been very helpful.

It is nice to find something that correlates with the way I believe.