27 Oct 2012, 12:26 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
It wouldn't be able to do so without time. 
The big bang happened the very moment time began.
The big bang happened the very moment time began.But that assumes time linear, that there is only one time dimension.
Dimensions and the laws of physics began at the time of the big bang as well. There never was a "before" the Big Bang.
While time in most string theories is perceived as one dimensional, there might be more than one time dimension. Nobody really kniws for sure. This does not make it possible for "before the big bang" to exist, though.
I don't think an oscillating universe is compatible with a flat universe.Steinhardt and Turok have proposed a cosmological theory (ekpyrotic cosmology) in which there is a "before". It fits the currently known facts as well as the current "big bang" cosmology.
ruveyn
27 Oct 2012, 4:14 pm
A bat measures it's world limited by the speed of sound.
We measure our world limited by the speed of light.
Beyond our sensitivities and measuring techniques is a universe connected instantaneously, and it develops in unison. 
27 Oct 2012, 10:11 pm
raydon wrote:
A bat measures it's world limited by the speed of sound.
We measure our world limited by the speed of light.
Beyond our sensitivities and measuring techniques is a universe connected instantaneously, and it develops in unison.
We measure our world limited by the speed of light.
Beyond our sensitivities and measuring techniques is a universe connected instantaneously, and it develops in unison.
There is zero evidence to support that list statement. Every experiment done so far indicate that the speed of light is the upper bound for speed. And do not let the experiments which falsify Bell's Inequality fool you. There is no faster than light transmission of either information or energy.
ruveyn
02 Nov 2012, 1:36 pm
02 Nov 2012, 6:20 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
It wouldn't be able to do so without time. The big bang happened the very moment time began.
The big bang happened the very moment time began.But that assumes time linear, that there is only one time dimension.
Dimensions and the laws of physics began at the time of the big bang as well. There never was a "before" the Big Bang.
While time in most string theories is perceived as one dimensional, there might be more than one time dimension. Nobody really kniws for sure. This does not make it possible for "before the big bang" to exist, though.
I don't think an oscillating universe is compatible with a flat universe.Steinhardt and Turok have proposed a cosmological theory (ekpyrotic cosmology) in which there is a "before". It fits the currently known facts as well as the current "big bang" cosmology.
ruveyn
Interesting. This theory begs the question, though. What caused the Big Bang? Why would the Big Bang even matter if there was a "before"?
03 Nov 2012, 10:38 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
It wouldn't be able to do so without time. The big bang happened the very moment time began.
The big bang happened the very moment time began.But that assumes time linear, that there is only one time dimension.
Dimensions and the laws of physics began at the time of the big bang as well. There never was a "before" the Big Bang.
While time in most string theories is perceived as one dimensional, there might be more than one time dimension. Nobody really kniws for sure. This does not make it possible for "before the big bang" to exist, though.
I don't think an oscillating universe is compatible with a flat universe.Steinhardt and Turok have proposed a cosmological theory (ekpyrotic cosmology) in which there is a "before". It fits the currently known facts as well as the current "big bang" cosmology.
ruveyn
I've enjoyed their work immensely.
05 Nov 2012, 10:11 am
05 Nov 2012, 10:15 am
05 Nov 2012, 5:02 pm
Kurgan wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
It wouldn't be able to do so without time. The big bang happened the very moment time began.
The big bang happened the very moment time began.But that assumes time linear, that there is only one time dimension.
Dimensions and the laws of physics began at the time of the big bang as well. There never was a "before" the Big Bang.
While time in most string theories is perceived as one dimensional, there might be more than one time dimension. Nobody really kniws for sure. This does not make it possible for "before the big bang" to exist, though.
I don't think an oscillating universe is compatible with a flat universe.Steinhardt and Turok have proposed a cosmological theory (ekpyrotic cosmology) in which there is a "before". It fits the currently known facts as well as the current "big bang" cosmology.
ruveyn
Interesting. This theory begs the question, though. What caused the Big Bang? Why would the Big Bang even matter if there was a "before"?
Not quite. They claim that our favorite Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding in a higher dimensional space.
ruveyn
05 Nov 2012, 7:50 pm
ruveyn wrote:
raydon wrote:
A bat measures it's world limited by the speed of sound.
We measure our world limited by the speed of light.
Beyond our sensitivities and measuring techniques is a universe connected instantaneously, and it develops in unison.
We measure our world limited by the speed of light.
Beyond our sensitivities and measuring techniques is a universe connected instantaneously, and it develops in unison.
There is zero evidence to support that list statement. Every experiment done so far indicate that the speed of light is the upper bound for speed. And do not let the experiments which falsify Bell's Inequality fool you. There is no faster than light transmission of either information or energy.
ruveyn
What about quantum entanglement? Sure, you can't send useful information, but it's still information, and it has still travelled instantaneously.
Sometimes, though, I think that perhaps the universe is curved, and the two particles are really part of the same large structure outside our universe, and it appears instantaneous but really its just much faster because we can't measure it yet. Like something wormhole-ish. But that's really unlikely, and there's no evidence.
Is the reason for quantum entanglement known to science, or has it never just been properly explained to me in a manner I can understand?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Keep Musk out of it unless what he does directly affects us |
26 Mar 2025, 4:23 pm |
| Why do people use your name when speaking directly to you? |
07 Apr 2025, 11:19 am |
| Spare time |
14 Apr 2025, 3:24 pm |
| Hyperfocus and time management |
20 Feb 2025, 9:25 pm |
