What caused the Big Bang?

[DarkColoredLight]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

You could always take the non-scientific reasoning....


But then again... this is a science forum...

Best of both worlds?

Originally Posted by ughaibu

Re: Indeterminism and Freewill
Even if there are only two possibilities, if choice can be exercised, there is free will.

If at all possible that the universe didn't know if came from nothing. Being the ultimate action speaking louder than words addvict. Also, being blind of the choice it made to "be the fastest sperm." Then, couldn't the universe just of instinctivly come to exsist?


Just another observation as yet another passenger of earth. Looking out my window of opportunity squinking to see what might be, ignoring back seat drivers. While we make our instinctive trip around our sun. Which instictivly sheds light, casts shadows and breeds life. Nature at it's finest folks.

"Rather love me or leave me alone." Jay - Z

[KickAssClown]

t=0? Something which is intrinsicly tied to distance, and has a value which is not allowed in quatum physics. Bah humbug.

[sergey500]

Well in my personal opinion I believe it went something like this.

In very beginning there was nothing. Nothing is something. Nothing is uniformed energy. Energy has always been there, always constant...law of conservation. Now here is where it starts, what is the difference between matter and energy? Matter is energy with a shell and properties. Back to our nothingness. This happened over an immense time span (yet no time exists...), the energy wavered together through their own gravity and/or through pure coincidance. The combined energy grew and grew, it developed a shell...and properties. Now we got a basic subparticle. Now that it has some form of mass, it now has its own field and attracts other newly made particles. They have different properties because this is done through random mixing of energy. The subparticles collide and destroy each other. Similar to what particle accelarators do. Over the course of time, they combine again in different formulas. New particles. They keep colliding through their newly made mass and fields. Eventually we form so many particles they are all unstable with other and explode. The big bang doesn't happen in one place, it happened everywhere. For that matter, it wasn't that "big", just big in scale, not power. Now the newly made particles move to create our universe.

Of course this is my opinion and it has many flaws, but it is an answer. Wether its right or not is simply a different question

[DarkColoredLight]

I LOL at all the nonbelievers!!!

For I have found a loop hole.

For those who had faith in me. You can find me where I hide.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by DarkColoredLight

If at all possible that the universe didn't know if came from nothing.

Being the ultimate action speaking louder than words addvict.

Also, being blind of the choice it made to "be the fastest sperm."

Then, couldn't the universe just of instinctivly come to exsist?

Just another observation as yet another passenger of earth. Looking out my window of opportunity squinking to see what might be, ignoring back seat drivers.

While we make our instinctive trip around our sun.

Which instictivly sheds light, casts shadows and breeds life. Nature at it's finest folks.

In all seriousness, is it possible that English is a second language for you?

[EWright]

Originally Posted by sergey500

Well in my personal opinion I believe it went something like this.

In very beginning there was nothing. Nothing is something. Nothing is uniformed energy. Energy has always been there, always constant...law of conservation. Now here is where it starts, what is the difference between matter and energy? Matter is energy with a shell and properties. Back to our nothingness. This happened over an immense time span (yet no time exists...), the energy wavered together through their own gravity and/or through pure coincidance. The combined energy grew and grew, it developed a shell...and properties. Now we got a basic subparticle. Now that it has some form of mass, it now has its own field and attracts other newly made particles. They have different properties because this is done through random mixing of energy. The subparticles collide and destroy each other. Similar to what particle accelarators do. Over the course of time, they combine again in different formulas. New particles. They keep colliding through their newly made mass and fields. Eventually we form so many particles they are all unstable with other and explode. The big bang doesn't happen in one place, it happened everywhere. For that matter, it wasn't that "big", just big in scale, not power. Now the newly made particles move to create our universe.

Of course this is my opinion and it has many flaws, but it is an answer. Wether its right or not is simply a different question

I rather enjoy this view Sergey. However, you could initially state that in the beginning there was 'energy', as opposed to 'nothing', since you then say nothing is something.

It is important for those posing the question to understand that the big bang wasn't necessary for a beginning; it is just the leading theory.

Similar to your beginning from uniform energy I take the position that Time was also uniform in the beginning, and that Time and Energy had potential for direction (or action as you describe). See my Theory of Temporal Relativity for more on my view.

[DarkColoredLight]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

In all seriousness, is it possible that English is a second language for you?

Probably. Well not yet anyway.

[sergey500]

Originally Posted by EWright

I rather enjoy this view Sergey. However, you could initially state that in the beginning there was 'energy', as opposed to 'nothing', since you then say nothing is something.

It is important for those posing the question to understand that the big bang wasn't necessary for a beginning; it is just the leading theory.

Similar to your beginning from uniform energy I take the position that Time was also uniform in the beginning, and that Time and Energy had potential for direction (or action as you describe). See my Theory of Temporal Relativity for more on my view.

Well I am assuming that you do not agree that big bang was the beginning. I did consider those theories that say big bang is just string relapse of a past big crunch (If I understood your point that is). But I based my idea of the very beginning, what happened before those big bangs and crunchs. I am saying energy was always there. I am not sure what I am pointing out here, I think we misunderstood something.

Anyways, I was interested when you said time is uniformed too. Since one would have to have strong defination of what time is. I will check that that link slightly later (need to eat.).

[DarkColoredLight]

Originally Posted by sergey500

Well I am assuming that you do not agree that big bang was the beginning. I did consider those theories that say big bang is just string relapse of a past big crunch (If I understood your point that is). But I based my idea of the very beginning, what happened before those big bangs and crunchs. I am saying energy was always there. I am not sure what I am pointing out here, I think we misunderstood something.

Anyways, I was interested when you said time is uniformed too. Since one would have to have strong defination of what time is. I will check that that link slightly later (need to eat.).

I have 2 cents, want them?

I'll try to justify the undefined, by just defing nature. But, what do I know. It's not like I'm the antichrist or shit like that.

[dagaz]

To me one of the big problems in the big bang model as it is currently accepted is that both space and time were created during the Big Bang. Therefore if time was created by the Big Bang there was no before the Big Bang, no way of saying how the Big Bang came into being or what caused it.

Also, if you take all the energy - including all the energy from dark energy and dark matter - that is one incredible amount of energy to have in one spot - yet no-one can say how that came to be.

Sounds suspiciously like, "Just have faith, my son." Except this time its "All the evidence supports it".