Stephen Hawking: What was before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter RubberBuccaneer
- Start date
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.xes said:Tis so. I just made it up,so it's true
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
If this Dan Brown reference is something to do with his Angels and Demonds book, please don't spoil it for me as I am waiting to read it.
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
xes said:
Cunt
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
STOP THIS! IT'S SILLY!!
This was a nice, sensible thread.
And now you've made it all Phil Dwyer *shakes fist*
This was a nice, sensible thread.
And now you've made it all Phil Dwyer *shakes fist*
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
kyser_soze said:
From Big Bangs to Cunts in only 36 posts. Ah, the joy of Urban
I don't think there's a good answer to that question yet and Stephen was perhaps a bit arrogant with his response. The physics involved are not yet well enough understood (as in consensus reached) and it's beyond our current understanding. New ground telescopes + the Spitzer space telescope are busy collecting new groundbreaking observations all the time though, and hopefully will provide us with new evidence of the early universe to fill in the gaps. Particularly on the "dark-energy" problem, which is the biggest fuck-up to our understanding.
It seems from the currently accepted ideas and observations, that the best we can do right now is say what happed from 100 million years or so AFTER, and from there to the present day, most of our understanding about this has come in the last 20 years or so - not a bad acheivement for mankind in a universrs that is about 14 Billion years old!
It seems from the currently accepted ideas and observations, that the best we can do right now is say what happed from 100 million years or so AFTER, and from there to the present day, most of our understanding about this has come in the last 20 years or so - not a bad acheivement for mankind in a universrs that is about 14 Billion years old!
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I believe there was a sound like a mighty wind. But I could be wrong.
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
MarkMark said:
Humans have learnt so so much is such a short space of time there's no reason to suggest we won't fully understand everything that happened during the big bang in the future. But we'll probably destroy ourselves first so it's irrelevant.
@ the human race.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Are you suggesting that we're all a bit thick Tobytobyjug said:
Nothing doesn't have to come from anywhere, that's why its nothingMysteryGuest said:So where did that nothing come from then?
I don't see what was wrong with Hawking's answer (by an astonishing coincidence, what I was about to post before I read the OP
), the big bang was the beginning of time as we understand it, so to ask what was before it is not a meaningful question.spacemonkey said:Humans have learnt so so much is such a short space of time there's no reason to suggest we won't fully understand everything that happened during the big bang in the future. But we'll probably destroy ourselves first so it's irrelevant.
The biggest challenge of the next few hundred years or so, is discovering how not to be victims of our own success. If we fail the universe will carry on being beautiful though, and we will still have achieved great things.
Ok.. i feel one of my headaches coming on now so that's enough deepness for me today.. <logs onto the anal sex thread>
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
And how did it explode?MysteryGuest said:So where did that nothing come from then?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Hey, maybe it was the Big Foreplay?
*gets coat*
*gets coat*
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
MarkMark said:
Is the universe beautiful if there's nobody around to appreciate it?
*brain melts*
lostexpectation
New Member
blaa
if time and space are intertwined, is there a different question to be asked like not what happened before the big bang but what happened behind the big bang or spacial question rather then a timeline question?
if time and space are intertwined, is there a different question to be asked like not what happened before the big bang but what happened behind the big bang or spacial question rather then a timeline question?
RubberBuccaneer
Hedd Wyn
Does the rule that energy cannot be created or destroyed still hold true? ( remembering science over 20 years ago )?
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
It's all to do with the fabric of spacetime.
Before the big bang there was no fabric of spacetime, just lots of thread.
God spent like ages and ages knitting away, dropping the occasional stitch, that sort of thing.
Eventually he produced the fabric of spacetime itself.
It was fine until the first time he put it through the wash - then it shrank.
The universe has sat in the back of his wardrobe ever since.
Before the big bang there was no fabric of spacetime, just lots of thread.
God spent like ages and ages knitting away, dropping the occasional stitch, that sort of thing.
Eventually he produced the fabric of spacetime itself.
It was fine until the first time he put it through the wash - then it shrank.
The universe has sat in the back of his wardrobe ever since.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
A lot of heavy petting
Boom tish
Boom tish
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
MarkMark said:nnnnnnggggg!
Well I had a quick look using my time machine!!
<stuffs your brain back in>
there you go
Yeah but like chocolate when it's resolidified, it's never quite the same!
lostexpectation said:
No, again this is an essentially...anthropomorphic [for want of a better term] problem. We, as humans, are rooted experientially in the macroscopic world. What we consider to be 'common sense' is derived from our observations of the world around us. This logic can only safely and correctly be applied to things on a similar scale, but it breaks down when applied in dofferent circumstances [e.g. the headfucks that come from trying to comprehend quantum phenomena].
There are four dimensions to our universe ['our' as in the universe as we percieve it]: three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. We can only talk in terms of these dimensions within this universe- these categories are of this universe and so are inapplicable outside it.
The person who mentioned the 'universe as the surface of a sphere' thing- that is a problem with analogies- a tendency to get wrapped up in them. The theory that is being talked about there is either the non-linear nature of space-time [if you go on forever in one direction you end up back where you started from- spacetime is curved back on itself] or the holographic theory of the universe [in which the universe as we experience it is just a hologram, with the actual information being encoded on the 2-D surface of some weird pseudospherical structure- headfuck]
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Now you can stop that sort of talk RIGHT NOW young man. Just reading it and skirting around the edges of thinking about it is making my brain hurt.
all to do with the rate of information loss and mass loss of a black hole as it evaporates pointing to information content being to do with area rather than volume. Implication is that the three dimensions as experienced might just be effects of information processing, and not actually real :errrrrrr:
edit: i read the original article in SciAm a few years ago, but this is now subscription-only.
Some kind infothief has put the article up here
edit: i read the original article in SciAm a few years ago, but this is now subscription-only.
Some kind infothief has put the article up here
Similar threads
